Diversity in Medicine

Klay Noto wants to be the kind of doctor he never had when he began to question his gender identity.

A second-year student at Tulane University in New Orleans, he wants to listen compassionately to patients’ concerns and recognize the hurt when they question who they are. He will be the kind of doctor who knows that a breast exam can be traumatizing if someone has been breast binding or that instructing a patient to take everything off and put on a gown can be triggering for someone with gender dysphoria.

Being in the room for hard conversations is part of why he pursued med school. “There aren’t many LGBT people in medicine and as I started to understand all the dynamics that go into it, I started to see that I could do it and I could be that different kind of doctor,” he told this news organization.

Mr. Noto, who transitioned after college, wants to see more transgender people like himself teaching gender medicine, and for all medical students to be trained in what it means to be transgender and how to give compassionate and comprehensive care to all patients.

Gains have been made in providing curriculum in transgender care that trains medical students in such concepts as how to approach gender identity with sensitivity and how to manage hormone therapy and surgery for transitioning patients who request that, according to those interviewed for this story.

But they agree there’s a long way to go to having widespread medical school integration of the health care needs of about 1.4 million transgender people in the United States.

According to the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Curriculum Inventory data collected from 131 U.S. medical schools, more than 65% offered some form of transgender-related education in 2018, and more than 80% of those provided such curriculum in required courses.
 

Lack of transgender, nonbinary faculty

Jason Klein, MD, is a pediatric endocrinologist and medical director of the Transgender Youth Health Program at New York (N.Y.) University.

He said in an interview that the number of programs nationally that have gender medicine as a structured part of their curriculum has increased over the last 5-10 years, but that education is not standardized from program to program.

The program at NYU includes lecture-style learning, case presentations, real-world conversations with people in the community, group discussions, and patient care, Dr. Klein said. There are formal lectures as part of adolescent medicine where students learn the differences between gender and sexual identity, and education on medical treatment of transgender and nonbinary adolescents, starting with puberty blockers and moving into affirming hormones.

Doctors also learn to know their limits and decide when to refer patients to a specialist.

“The focus is really about empathic and supportive care,” said Dr. Klein, assistant professor in the department of pediatrics at Hassenfeld Children’s Hospital at NYU Langone Health. “It’s about communication and understanding and the language we use and how to deliver affirming care in a health care setting in general.”

Imagine the potential stressors, he said, of a transgender person entering a typical health care setting. The electronic health record may only have room for the legal name of a person and not the name a person may currently be using. The intake form typically asks patients to check either male or female. The bathrooms give the same two choices. 

“Every physician should know how to speak with, treat, emote with, and empathize with care for the trans and nonbinary individual,” Dr. Klein said.

Dr. Klein noted there is a glaring shortage of trans and nonbinary physicians to lead efforts to expand education on integrating the medical, psychological, and psychosocial care that patients will receive.

Currently, gender medicine is not included on board exams for adolescent medicine or endocrinology, he said.

“Adding formal training in gender medicine to board exams would really help solidify the importance of this arena of medicine,” he noted.
 

First AAMC standards

In 2014, the AAMC released the first standards to guide curricula across medical school and residency to support training doctors to be competent in caring for transgender patients.

The standards include recommending that all doctors be able to communicate with patients related to their gender identity and understand how to deliver high-quality care to transgender and gender-diverse patients within their specialty, Kristen L. Eckstrand, MD, a coauthor of the guidelines, told this news organization.

“Many medical schools have developed their own curricula to meet these standards,” said Dr. Eckstrand, medical director for LGBTQIA+ Health at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

Norma Poll-Hunter, PhD, AAMC’s senior director for workforce diversity, noted that the organization recently released its diversity, equity, and inclusion competencies that guide the medical education of students, residents, and faculty.

Dr. Poll-Hunter told this news organization that AAMC partners with the Building the Next Generation of Academic Physicians LGBT Health Workforce Conference “to support safe spaces for scholarly efforts and mentorship to advance this area of work.”
 

Team approach at Rutgers

Among the medical schools that incorporate comprehensive transgender care into the curriculum is Rutgers University’s Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, N.J.

Gloria Bachmann, MD, is professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the school and medical director of its partner, the PROUD Gender Center of New Jersey. PROUD stands for “Promoting Respect, Outreach, Understanding, and Dignity,” and the center provides comprehensive care for transgender and nonbinary patients in one location.

Courtesy Rutgers University

Dr. Bachmann said Rutgers takes a team approach with both instructors and learners teaching medical students about transgender care. The teachers are not only professors in traditional classroom lectures, but patient navigators and nurses at the PROUD center, established as part of the medical school in 2020. Students learn from the navigators, for instance, how to help patients through the spectrum of inpatient and outpatient care.

“All of our learners do get to care for individuals who identify as transgender,” said Dr. Bachmann.

Among the improvements in educating students on transgender care over the years, she said, is the emphasis on social determinants of health. In the transgender population, initial questions may include whether the person is able to access care through insurance as laws vary widely on what care and procedures are covered.

As another example, Dr. Bachmann cites: “If they are seen on an emergency basis and are sent home with medication and follow-up, can they afford it?”

Another consideration is whether there is a home to which they can return.

“Many individuals who are transgender may not have a home. Their family may not be accepting of them. Therefore, it’s the social determinants of health as well as their transgender identity that have to be put into the equation of best care,” she said.
 

Giving back to the trans community

Mr. Noto doesn’t know whether he will specialize in gender medicine, but he is committed to serving the transgender community in whatever physician path he chooses.

He said he realizes he is fortunate to have strong family support and good insurance and that he can afford fees, such as the copay to see transgender care specialists. Many in the community do not have those resources and are likely to get care “only if they have to.”

At Tulane, training in transgender care starts during orientation week and continues on different levels, with different options, throughout medical school and residency, he added.

Mr. Noto said he would like to see more mandatory learning such as a “queer-centered exam, where you have to give an organ inventory and you have to ask patients if it’s OK to talk about X, Y, and Z.” He’d also like more opportunities for clinical interaction with transgender patients, such as queer-centered rotations.

When physicians aren’t well trained in transgender care, you have patients educating the doctors, which, Mr. Noto said, should not be acceptable.

“People come to you on their worst day. And to not be informed about them in my mind is negligent. In what other population can you choose not to learn about someone just because you don’t want to?” he said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Klay Noto wants to be the kind of doctor he never had when he began to question his gender identity.

A second-year student at Tulane University in New Orleans, he wants to listen compassionately to patients’ concerns and recognize the hurt when they question who they are. He will be the kind of doctor who knows that a breast exam can be traumatizing if someone has been breast binding or that instructing a patient to take everything off and put on a gown can be triggering for someone with gender dysphoria.

Being in the room for hard conversations is part of why he pursued med school. “There aren’t many LGBT people in medicine and as I started to understand all the dynamics that go into it, I started to see that I could do it and I could be that different kind of doctor,” he told this news organization.

Mr. Noto, who transitioned after college, wants to see more transgender people like himself teaching gender medicine, and for all medical students to be trained in what it means to be transgender and how to give compassionate and comprehensive care to all patients.

Gains have been made in providing curriculum in transgender care that trains medical students in such concepts as how to approach gender identity with sensitivity and how to manage hormone therapy and surgery for transitioning patients who request that, according to those interviewed for this story.

But they agree there’s a long way to go to having widespread medical school integration of the health care needs of about 1.4 million transgender people in the United States.

According to the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Curriculum Inventory data collected from 131 U.S. medical schools, more than 65% offered some form of transgender-related education in 2018, and more than 80% of those provided such curriculum in required courses.
 

Lack of transgender, nonbinary faculty

Jason Klein, MD, is a pediatric endocrinologist and medical director of the Transgender Youth Health Program at New York (N.Y.) University.

He said in an interview that the number of programs nationally that have gender medicine as a structured part of their curriculum has increased over the last 5-10 years, but that education is not standardized from program to program.

The program at NYU includes lecture-style learning, case presentations, real-world conversations with people in the community, group discussions, and patient care, Dr. Klein said. There are formal lectures as part of adolescent medicine where students learn the differences between gender and sexual identity, and education on medical treatment of transgender and nonbinary adolescents, starting with puberty blockers and moving into affirming hormones.

Doctors also learn to know their limits and decide when to refer patients to a specialist.

“The focus is really about empathic and supportive care,” said Dr. Klein, assistant professor in the department of pediatrics at Hassenfeld Children’s Hospital at NYU Langone Health. “It’s about communication and understanding and the language we use and how to deliver affirming care in a health care setting in general.”

Imagine the potential stressors, he said, of a transgender person entering a typical health care setting. The electronic health record may only have room for the legal name of a person and not the name a person may currently be using. The intake form typically asks patients to check either male or female. The bathrooms give the same two choices. 

“Every physician should know how to speak with, treat, emote with, and empathize with care for the trans and nonbinary individual,” Dr. Klein said.

Dr. Klein noted there is a glaring shortage of trans and nonbinary physicians to lead efforts to expand education on integrating the medical, psychological, and psychosocial care that patients will receive.

Currently, gender medicine is not included on board exams for adolescent medicine or endocrinology, he said.

“Adding formal training in gender medicine to board exams would really help solidify the importance of this arena of medicine,” he noted.
 

First AAMC standards

In 2014, the AAMC released the first standards to guide curricula across medical school and residency to support training doctors to be competent in caring for transgender patients.

The standards include recommending that all doctors be able to communicate with patients related to their gender identity and understand how to deliver high-quality care to transgender and gender-diverse patients within their specialty, Kristen L. Eckstrand, MD, a coauthor of the guidelines, told this news organization.

“Many medical schools have developed their own curricula to meet these standards,” said Dr. Eckstrand, medical director for LGBTQIA+ Health at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

Norma Poll-Hunter, PhD, AAMC’s senior director for workforce diversity, noted that the organization recently released its diversity, equity, and inclusion competencies that guide the medical education of students, residents, and faculty.

Dr. Poll-Hunter told this news organization that AAMC partners with the Building the Next Generation of Academic Physicians LGBT Health Workforce Conference “to support safe spaces for scholarly efforts and mentorship to advance this area of work.”
 

Team approach at Rutgers

Among the medical schools that incorporate comprehensive transgender care into the curriculum is Rutgers University’s Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, N.J.

Gloria Bachmann, MD, is professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the school and medical director of its partner, the PROUD Gender Center of New Jersey. PROUD stands for “Promoting Respect, Outreach, Understanding, and Dignity,” and the center provides comprehensive care for transgender and nonbinary patients in one location.

Courtesy Rutgers University

Dr. Bachmann said Rutgers takes a team approach with both instructors and learners teaching medical students about transgender care. The teachers are not only professors in traditional classroom lectures, but patient navigators and nurses at the PROUD center, established as part of the medical school in 2020. Students learn from the navigators, for instance, how to help patients through the spectrum of inpatient and outpatient care.

“All of our learners do get to care for individuals who identify as transgender,” said Dr. Bachmann.

Among the improvements in educating students on transgender care over the years, she said, is the emphasis on social determinants of health. In the transgender population, initial questions may include whether the person is able to access care through insurance as laws vary widely on what care and procedures are covered.

As another example, Dr. Bachmann cites: “If they are seen on an emergency basis and are sent home with medication and follow-up, can they afford it?”

Another consideration is whether there is a home to which they can return.

“Many individuals who are transgender may not have a home. Their family may not be accepting of them. Therefore, it’s the social determinants of health as well as their transgender identity that have to be put into the equation of best care,” she said.
 

Giving back to the trans community

Mr. Noto doesn’t know whether he will specialize in gender medicine, but he is committed to serving the transgender community in whatever physician path he chooses.

He said he realizes he is fortunate to have strong family support and good insurance and that he can afford fees, such as the copay to see transgender care specialists. Many in the community do not have those resources and are likely to get care “only if they have to.”

At Tulane, training in transgender care starts during orientation week and continues on different levels, with different options, throughout medical school and residency, he added.

Mr. Noto said he would like to see more mandatory learning such as a “queer-centered exam, where you have to give an organ inventory and you have to ask patients if it’s OK to talk about X, Y, and Z.” He’d also like more opportunities for clinical interaction with transgender patients, such as queer-centered rotations.

When physicians aren’t well trained in transgender care, you have patients educating the doctors, which, Mr. Noto said, should not be acceptable.

“People come to you on their worst day. And to not be informed about them in my mind is negligent. In what other population can you choose not to learn about someone just because you don’t want to?” he said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Klay Noto wants to be the kind of doctor he never had when he began to question his gender identity.

A second-year student at Tulane University in New Orleans, he wants to listen compassionately to patients’ concerns and recognize the hurt when they question who they are. He will be the kind of doctor who knows that a breast exam can be traumatizing if someone has been breast binding or that instructing a patient to take everything off and put on a gown can be triggering for someone with gender dysphoria.

Being in the room for hard conversations is part of why he pursued med school. “There aren’t many LGBT people in medicine and as I started to understand all the dynamics that go into it, I started to see that I could do it and I could be that different kind of doctor,” he told this news organization.

Mr. Noto, who transitioned after college, wants to see more transgender people like himself teaching gender medicine, and for all medical students to be trained in what it means to be transgender and how to give compassionate and comprehensive care to all patients.

Gains have been made in providing curriculum in transgender care that trains medical students in such concepts as how to approach gender identity with sensitivity and how to manage hormone therapy and surgery for transitioning patients who request that, according to those interviewed for this story.

But they agree there’s a long way to go to having widespread medical school integration of the health care needs of about 1.4 million transgender people in the United States.

According to the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Curriculum Inventory data collected from 131 U.S. medical schools, more than 65% offered some form of transgender-related education in 2018, and more than 80% of those provided such curriculum in required courses.
 

Lack of transgender, nonbinary faculty

Jason Klein, MD, is a pediatric endocrinologist and medical director of the Transgender Youth Health Program at New York (N.Y.) University.

He said in an interview that the number of programs nationally that have gender medicine as a structured part of their curriculum has increased over the last 5-10 years, but that education is not standardized from program to program.

The program at NYU includes lecture-style learning, case presentations, real-world conversations with people in the community, group discussions, and patient care, Dr. Klein said. There are formal lectures as part of adolescent medicine where students learn the differences between gender and sexual identity, and education on medical treatment of transgender and nonbinary adolescents, starting with puberty blockers and moving into affirming hormones.

Doctors also learn to know their limits and decide when to refer patients to a specialist.

“The focus is really about empathic and supportive care,” said Dr. Klein, assistant professor in the department of pediatrics at Hassenfeld Children’s Hospital at NYU Langone Health. “It’s about communication and understanding and the language we use and how to deliver affirming care in a health care setting in general.”

Imagine the potential stressors, he said, of a transgender person entering a typical health care setting. The electronic health record may only have room for the legal name of a person and not the name a person may currently be using. The intake form typically asks patients to check either male or female. The bathrooms give the same two choices. 

“Every physician should know how to speak with, treat, emote with, and empathize with care for the trans and nonbinary individual,” Dr. Klein said.

Dr. Klein noted there is a glaring shortage of trans and nonbinary physicians to lead efforts to expand education on integrating the medical, psychological, and psychosocial care that patients will receive.

Currently, gender medicine is not included on board exams for adolescent medicine or endocrinology, he said.

“Adding formal training in gender medicine to board exams would really help solidify the importance of this arena of medicine,” he noted.
 

First AAMC standards

In 2014, the AAMC released the first standards to guide curricula across medical school and residency to support training doctors to be competent in caring for transgender patients.

The standards include recommending that all doctors be able to communicate with patients related to their gender identity and understand how to deliver high-quality care to transgender and gender-diverse patients within their specialty, Kristen L. Eckstrand, MD, a coauthor of the guidelines, told this news organization.

“Many medical schools have developed their own curricula to meet these standards,” said Dr. Eckstrand, medical director for LGBTQIA+ Health at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

Norma Poll-Hunter, PhD, AAMC’s senior director for workforce diversity, noted that the organization recently released its diversity, equity, and inclusion competencies that guide the medical education of students, residents, and faculty.

Dr. Poll-Hunter told this news organization that AAMC partners with the Building the Next Generation of Academic Physicians LGBT Health Workforce Conference “to support safe spaces for scholarly efforts and mentorship to advance this area of work.”
 

Team approach at Rutgers

Among the medical schools that incorporate comprehensive transgender care into the curriculum is Rutgers University’s Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, N.J.

Gloria Bachmann, MD, is professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the school and medical director of its partner, the PROUD Gender Center of New Jersey. PROUD stands for “Promoting Respect, Outreach, Understanding, and Dignity,” and the center provides comprehensive care for transgender and nonbinary patients in one location.

Courtesy Rutgers University

Dr. Bachmann said Rutgers takes a team approach with both instructors and learners teaching medical students about transgender care. The teachers are not only professors in traditional classroom lectures, but patient navigators and nurses at the PROUD center, established as part of the medical school in 2020. Students learn from the navigators, for instance, how to help patients through the spectrum of inpatient and outpatient care.

“All of our learners do get to care for individuals who identify as transgender,” said Dr. Bachmann.

Among the improvements in educating students on transgender care over the years, she said, is the emphasis on social determinants of health. In the transgender population, initial questions may include whether the person is able to access care through insurance as laws vary widely on what care and procedures are covered.

As another example, Dr. Bachmann cites: “If they are seen on an emergency basis and are sent home with medication and follow-up, can they afford it?”

Another consideration is whether there is a home to which they can return.

“Many individuals who are transgender may not have a home. Their family may not be accepting of them. Therefore, it’s the social determinants of health as well as their transgender identity that have to be put into the equation of best care,” she said.
 

Giving back to the trans community

Mr. Noto doesn’t know whether he will specialize in gender medicine, but he is committed to serving the transgender community in whatever physician path he chooses.

He said he realizes he is fortunate to have strong family support and good insurance and that he can afford fees, such as the copay to see transgender care specialists. Many in the community do not have those resources and are likely to get care “only if they have to.”

At Tulane, training in transgender care starts during orientation week and continues on different levels, with different options, throughout medical school and residency, he added.

Mr. Noto said he would like to see more mandatory learning such as a “queer-centered exam, where you have to give an organ inventory and you have to ask patients if it’s OK to talk about X, Y, and Z.” He’d also like more opportunities for clinical interaction with transgender patients, such as queer-centered rotations.

When physicians aren’t well trained in transgender care, you have patients educating the doctors, which, Mr. Noto said, should not be acceptable.

“People come to you on their worst day. And to not be informed about them in my mind is negligent. In what other population can you choose not to learn about someone just because you don’t want to?” he said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

THE PRESENTATION

A Early central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia with a small central patch of hair loss in a 45-year-old Black woman.

B Late central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia with a large central patch of hair loss in a 43-year-old Black woman.

Scarring alopecia is a collection of hair loss disorders including chronic cutaneous lupus erythematosus (discoid lupus), lichen planopilaris, dissecting cellulitis, acne keloidalis, and central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia.¹ CCCA (formerly hot comb alopecia or follicular degeneration syndrome) is a progressive, scarring, inflammatory alopecia and represents the most common form of scarring alopecia in women of African descent. It results in permanent destruction of hair follicles.

Epidemiology

CCCA predominantly affects women of African descent but also may affect men. The prevalence of CCCA in those of African descent has varied in the literature. Khumalo² reported a prevalence of 1.2% for women younger than 50 years and 6.7% in women older than 50 years. CCCA has been reported in other ethnic groups, such as those of Asian descent.³

Historically, hair care practices that are more common in those of African descent, such as high-tension hairstyles as well as heat and chemical hair relaxers, were implicated in the development of CCCA. However, the causes of CCCA are most likely multifactorial, including family history, genetic mutations, and hair care practices.^4-7PADI3 mutations likely predispose some women to CCCA. Mutations in PADI3, which encodes peptidyl arginine deiminase 3 (an enzyme that modifies proteins crucial for the formation of hair shafts), were found in some patients with CCCA.⁸ Moreover, other genetic defects also likely play a role.⁷

Key clinical features

Early recognition is key for patients with CCCA.

• CCCA begins in the central scalp (crown area, vertex) and spreads centrifugally.
• Scalp symptoms such as tenderness, pain, a tingling or crawling sensation, and itching may occur.⁹ Some patients may not have any symptoms at all, and hair loss may progress painlessly.
• Central hair breakage—forme fruste CCCA—may be a presenting sign of CCCA.⁹
• Loss of follicular ostia and mottled hypopigmented and hyperpigmented macules are common findings.⁶
• CCCA can be diagnosed clinically and by histopathology.

Worth noting

Patients may experience hair loss and scalp symptoms for years before seeking medical evaluation. In some cultures, hair breakage or itching on the top of the scalp may be viewed as a normal occurrence in life.

It is important to set patient expectations that CCCA is a scarring alopecia, and the initial goal often is to maintain the patient's existing hair. However, hair and areas responding to treatment should still be treated. Without any intervention, the resulting scarring from CCCA may permanently scar follicles on the entire scalp.

Continue to: Due to the inflammatory...

Due to the inflammatory nature of CCCA, potent topical corticosteroids (eg, clobetasol propionate), intralesional corticosteroids (eg, triamcinolone acetonide), and oral antiinflammatory agents (eg, doxycycline) are utilized in the treatment of CCCA. Minoxidil is another treatment option. Adjuvant therapies such as topical metformin also have been tried.10 Importantly, treatment of CCCA may halt further permanent destruction of hair follicles, but scalp symptoms may reappear periodically and require re-treatment with anti-inflammatory agents.

Health care highlight

Thorough scalp examination and awareness of clinical features of CCCA may prompt earlier diagnosis and prevent future severe permanent alopecia. Clinicians should encourage patients with suggestive signs or symptoms of CCCA to seek care from a dermatologist.

THE PRESENTATION

A Early central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia with a small central patch of hair loss in a 45-year-old Black woman.

B Late central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia with a large central patch of hair loss in a 43-year-old Black woman.

Scarring alopecia is a collection of hair loss disorders including chronic cutaneous lupus erythematosus (discoid lupus), lichen planopilaris, dissecting cellulitis, acne keloidalis, and central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia.¹ CCCA (formerly hot comb alopecia or follicular degeneration syndrome) is a progressive, scarring, inflammatory alopecia and represents the most common form of scarring alopecia in women of African descent. It results in permanent destruction of hair follicles.

Epidemiology

CCCA predominantly affects women of African descent but also may affect men. The prevalence of CCCA in those of African descent has varied in the literature. Khumalo² reported a prevalence of 1.2% for women younger than 50 years and 6.7% in women older than 50 years. CCCA has been reported in other ethnic groups, such as those of Asian descent.³

Historically, hair care practices that are more common in those of African descent, such as high-tension hairstyles as well as heat and chemical hair relaxers, were implicated in the development of CCCA. However, the causes of CCCA are most likely multifactorial, including family history, genetic mutations, and hair care practices.^4-7PADI3 mutations likely predispose some women to CCCA. Mutations in PADI3, which encodes peptidyl arginine deiminase 3 (an enzyme that modifies proteins crucial for the formation of hair shafts), were found in some patients with CCCA.⁸ Moreover, other genetic defects also likely play a role.⁷

Key clinical features

Early recognition is key for patients with CCCA.

• CCCA begins in the central scalp (crown area, vertex) and spreads centrifugally.
• Scalp symptoms such as tenderness, pain, a tingling or crawling sensation, and itching may occur.⁹ Some patients may not have any symptoms at all, and hair loss may progress painlessly.
• Central hair breakage—forme fruste CCCA—may be a presenting sign of CCCA.⁹
• Loss of follicular ostia and mottled hypopigmented and hyperpigmented macules are common findings.⁶
• CCCA can be diagnosed clinically and by histopathology.

Worth noting

Patients may experience hair loss and scalp symptoms for years before seeking medical evaluation. In some cultures, hair breakage or itching on the top of the scalp may be viewed as a normal occurrence in life.

It is important to set patient expectations that CCCA is a scarring alopecia, and the initial goal often is to maintain the patient's existing hair. However, hair and areas responding to treatment should still be treated. Without any intervention, the resulting scarring from CCCA may permanently scar follicles on the entire scalp.

Continue to: Due to the inflammatory...

Due to the inflammatory nature of CCCA, potent topical corticosteroids (eg, clobetasol propionate), intralesional corticosteroids (eg, triamcinolone acetonide), and oral antiinflammatory agents (eg, doxycycline) are utilized in the treatment of CCCA. Minoxidil is another treatment option. Adjuvant therapies such as topical metformin also have been tried.10 Importantly, treatment of CCCA may halt further permanent destruction of hair follicles, but scalp symptoms may reappear periodically and require re-treatment with anti-inflammatory agents.

Health care highlight

Thorough scalp examination and awareness of clinical features of CCCA may prompt earlier diagnosis and prevent future severe permanent alopecia. Clinicians should encourage patients with suggestive signs or symptoms of CCCA to seek care from a dermatologist.

THE PRESENTATION

A Early central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia with a small central patch of hair loss in a 45-year-old Black woman.

B Late central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia with a large central patch of hair loss in a 43-year-old Black woman.

Scarring alopecia is a collection of hair loss disorders including chronic cutaneous lupus erythematosus (discoid lupus), lichen planopilaris, dissecting cellulitis, acne keloidalis, and central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia.¹ CCCA (formerly hot comb alopecia or follicular degeneration syndrome) is a progressive, scarring, inflammatory alopecia and represents the most common form of scarring alopecia in women of African descent. It results in permanent destruction of hair follicles.

Epidemiology

CCCA predominantly affects women of African descent but also may affect men. The prevalence of CCCA in those of African descent has varied in the literature. Khumalo² reported a prevalence of 1.2% for women younger than 50 years and 6.7% in women older than 50 years. CCCA has been reported in other ethnic groups, such as those of Asian descent.³

Historically, hair care practices that are more common in those of African descent, such as high-tension hairstyles as well as heat and chemical hair relaxers, were implicated in the development of CCCA. However, the causes of CCCA are most likely multifactorial, including family history, genetic mutations, and hair care practices.^4-7PADI3 mutations likely predispose some women to CCCA. Mutations in PADI3, which encodes peptidyl arginine deiminase 3 (an enzyme that modifies proteins crucial for the formation of hair shafts), were found in some patients with CCCA.⁸ Moreover, other genetic defects also likely play a role.⁷

Key clinical features

Early recognition is key for patients with CCCA.

• CCCA begins in the central scalp (crown area, vertex) and spreads centrifugally.
• Scalp symptoms such as tenderness, pain, a tingling or crawling sensation, and itching may occur.⁹ Some patients may not have any symptoms at all, and hair loss may progress painlessly.
• Central hair breakage—forme fruste CCCA—may be a presenting sign of CCCA.⁹
• Loss of follicular ostia and mottled hypopigmented and hyperpigmented macules are common findings.⁶
• CCCA can be diagnosed clinically and by histopathology.

Worth noting

Patients may experience hair loss and scalp symptoms for years before seeking medical evaluation. In some cultures, hair breakage or itching on the top of the scalp may be viewed as a normal occurrence in life.

It is important to set patient expectations that CCCA is a scarring alopecia, and the initial goal often is to maintain the patient's existing hair. However, hair and areas responding to treatment should still be treated. Without any intervention, the resulting scarring from CCCA may permanently scar follicles on the entire scalp.

Continue to: Due to the inflammatory...

Due to the inflammatory nature of CCCA, potent topical corticosteroids (eg, clobetasol propionate), intralesional corticosteroids (eg, triamcinolone acetonide), and oral antiinflammatory agents (eg, doxycycline) are utilized in the treatment of CCCA. Minoxidil is another treatment option. Adjuvant therapies such as topical metformin also have been tried.10 Importantly, treatment of CCCA may halt further permanent destruction of hair follicles, but scalp symptoms may reappear periodically and require re-treatment with anti-inflammatory agents.

Health care highlight

Thorough scalp examination and awareness of clinical features of CCCA may prompt earlier diagnosis and prevent future severe permanent alopecia. Clinicians should encourage patients with suggestive signs or symptoms of CCCA to seek care from a dermatologist.

When Sigmund Freud claimed that “anatomy is destiny” he was referring to anatomical sex as a determinant of personality traits. Expert consensus statements have previously offered some recommendations for managing these syndromes, but clinical data are scarce, so the present review “is intended to establish a starting point for future research,”

That notion has been widely discredited, but Freud appears to be inadvertently right in one respect: When it comes to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), anatomy really is destiny, and sex may be as well, pulmonary researchers say.

There is a growing body of evidence to indicate that COPD affects men and women differently, and that men and women patients with COPD require different clinical management. Yet women are often underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed, partly because of poorly understood sex differences, but also because of cultural biases.

But plunging any farther into the weeds, it’s important to define terms. Although various investigators have used the terms “sex” and “gender” interchangeably, sex is the preferred term when referring to biological attributes of individual patients, while gender refers to personal identity.

These distinctions are important, contended Amik Sodhi, MBBS, MPH, from the division of allergy, pulmonology, and critical care medicine at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.

“Sex is essentially a biologic construct, so it’s got to do with the sex chromosomes, the genetics of that person, and it refers to the anatomic variations that can change susceptibility to different diseases,” she said in an interview.

An example of sex differences or “sexual dimorphism” can be found in a recent meta-analysis of sex-based genetic associations by Megan Hardin, MD, MPH from Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston and colleagues.

They reported that CELSR1, a gene involved in fetal lung development, was expressed more among women than among men and that a single nucleotide polymorphism in the gene was associated with COPD among women smokers, but not among men smokers.

The finding points to a potential risk locus for COPD in women, and could help shed light on sexual dimorphism in COPD, Dr. Hardin and colleagues said.

In contrast to sex, “gender is more of a psychosocial construct which can impact how diseases manifest themselves, how they are potentially managed, and what outcomes might occur for that particular disease,” Dr. Sodhi said.

She and her colleagues recently published a review of sex and gender in common lung disorders and sleep in the journal CHEST, where they wrote that the “influence of sex and gender is portrayed in epidemiological data, disease pathogenesis and pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, response to treatment, access to care, and health outcomes. Hence, sex and gender should be considered in all types of research, clinical practice and educational curricula.”

For example, as previously reported at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Thoracic Society, sex-specific differences in the severity of symptoms and prevalence of comorbidities in patients with COPD may point to different criteria for diagnosing cardiac comorbidities in women and men.

Those conclusions came from a retrospective analysis of data on 795 women and 1,251 men with GOLD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease) class 1-3 disease.

The investigators looked at the patients’ clinical history, comorbidities, lung function, COPD Assessment Test scores, and modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea score, and found significant differences between men and women for most functional parameters and comorbidities, and for CAT items of cough, phlegm, and energy.

In logistic regression analysis, predictors for cardiac disease in men were energy, mMRC score, smoking status, body mass index, age, and spirometric lung function, but in women only age was significantly predictive for cardiac disease.

An example of gender effects on COPD differences in men and women is the increase in cigarette advertising aimed at women in the 1960s and the advent of women-targeted brands such as Virginia Slims, which in turn lead to increased smoking rates among women. In addition, in the developing world, where the sex/gender gap in COPD is narrowing, women tend to have greater exposure to wood smoke and cooking fuels in unventilated or poorly ventilated spaces, compared with men.
 

Increasing incidence among women

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, chronic lower respiratory diseases, primarily COPD, were the fourth-leading cause of death in women in the United States in 2018, following only heart disease, cancer, and accidents/injuries.

And as a CDC analysis of data from the 2013 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System showed, women were more likely to report being told by a physician that they had COPD than did men (6.6%, compared with 5.4%).

Dr. Sodhi and colleagues noted that, at all time points examined from 2005 to 2014, women had a higher proportion than men of COPD hospitalizations and in-hospital deaths. They also noted that female sex is associated with a threefold risk for severe early-onset COPD, and that women with COPD have lower diffusion capacity of lungs for carbon monoxide, despite having higher predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second, compared with men.

“Historically, COPD wasn’t a disease that was so prevalent in women. It’s been in the past 20 years that the trends have changed,” said Patricia Silveyra, MSc, PhD, ATSF, associate professor of environmental and occupational health at Indiana University, Bloomington.

The increasing prevalence of COPD among women cannot be explained by smoking alone, she said in an interview.

“It used to be thought that it was because more women smoked, but actually a lot of women who don’t smoke can develop COPD, so it appears to be probably something environmental, but because it used to be a disease of older men, in the clinic there was also a bias to diagnose men with COPD, and women with asthma, so a lot of women went underdiagnosed,” Dr. Silveyra said.

In their review, Dr. Sodhi and colleagues noted that women with COPD “may be underdiagnosed as a result of having different symptoms from those classically recognized. Reasons for underdiagnosis or a delay in diagnosis may also be due to lack of a formal evaluation with spirometry, women seeking care later in the course of disease, physician bias, or associated fatigue or depression misdirecting diagnostic strategies. Underdiagnosis may be associated with psychological distress and worse health-related quality of life.”

Although the evidence is mixed, women tend to present more frequently with the chronic bronchitis phenotype of COPD, compared with the emphysema phenotype, and women tend to have greater degrees of pulmonary function impairment when exposed to tobacco smoke, even after controlling for differences in height and weight.

“For the same amount of exposure to tobacco smoke, females are likely to develop more severe airflow limitation at an earlier age than males, and have more exacerbation,” Dr. Sodhi and colleagues wrote.

Both Dr. Silveyra and Dr. Sodhi said that reason why men and women differ in their physiological reactions to smoke are still unknown.
 

Sex differences in drug responses

There is only limited evidence to indicate that women and men respond differently to various therapeutic agents, but what is clear is that more research into this area is needed, Dr. Sodhi and Dr. Silveyra said.

For example, among the few studies that have documented sex differences, one showed no sex differences in the efficacy of salmeterol/fluticasone combination therapy for reducing exacerbations or improving quality of life, whereas another showed that women were more likely than men to experience COPD symptoms or exacerbations after stopping inhaled corticosteroids, Dr. Sodhi and colleagues noted.

Both Dr. Sodhi and Dr. Silveyra emphasized the need for clinical trials that study the effects of sex on treatment outcomes in COPD, which could lead to better, more personalized therapeutic regimens that take sex and gender into account.

Dr. Sodhi and colleagues offered the following advice to clinicians: “Interaction with female patients should take into account that their symptoms may not conform to traditionally accepted presentations. Challenges exist for female patients at all levels of health care interaction and as clinicians we need to acknowledge the bias and willfully work toward recognition and elimination of unconscious and conscious bias. Empowering our patients to have frank discussions with their health care team when they perceive bias is another step to help promote equity.”

The review by Dr. Sodhi and colleagues was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Sodhi and Dr. Silveyra reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.

When Sigmund Freud claimed that “anatomy is destiny” he was referring to anatomical sex as a determinant of personality traits. Expert consensus statements have previously offered some recommendations for managing these syndromes, but clinical data are scarce, so the present review “is intended to establish a starting point for future research,”

That notion has been widely discredited, but Freud appears to be inadvertently right in one respect: When it comes to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), anatomy really is destiny, and sex may be as well, pulmonary researchers say.

There is a growing body of evidence to indicate that COPD affects men and women differently, and that men and women patients with COPD require different clinical management. Yet women are often underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed, partly because of poorly understood sex differences, but also because of cultural biases.

But plunging any farther into the weeds, it’s important to define terms. Although various investigators have used the terms “sex” and “gender” interchangeably, sex is the preferred term when referring to biological attributes of individual patients, while gender refers to personal identity.

These distinctions are important, contended Amik Sodhi, MBBS, MPH, from the division of allergy, pulmonology, and critical care medicine at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.

“Sex is essentially a biologic construct, so it’s got to do with the sex chromosomes, the genetics of that person, and it refers to the anatomic variations that can change susceptibility to different diseases,” she said in an interview.

An example of sex differences or “sexual dimorphism” can be found in a recent meta-analysis of sex-based genetic associations by Megan Hardin, MD, MPH from Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston and colleagues.

They reported that CELSR1, a gene involved in fetal lung development, was expressed more among women than among men and that a single nucleotide polymorphism in the gene was associated with COPD among women smokers, but not among men smokers.

The finding points to a potential risk locus for COPD in women, and could help shed light on sexual dimorphism in COPD, Dr. Hardin and colleagues said.

In contrast to sex, “gender is more of a psychosocial construct which can impact how diseases manifest themselves, how they are potentially managed, and what outcomes might occur for that particular disease,” Dr. Sodhi said.

She and her colleagues recently published a review of sex and gender in common lung disorders and sleep in the journal CHEST, where they wrote that the “influence of sex and gender is portrayed in epidemiological data, disease pathogenesis and pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, response to treatment, access to care, and health outcomes. Hence, sex and gender should be considered in all types of research, clinical practice and educational curricula.”

For example, as previously reported at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Thoracic Society, sex-specific differences in the severity of symptoms and prevalence of comorbidities in patients with COPD may point to different criteria for diagnosing cardiac comorbidities in women and men.

Those conclusions came from a retrospective analysis of data on 795 women and 1,251 men with GOLD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease) class 1-3 disease.

The investigators looked at the patients’ clinical history, comorbidities, lung function, COPD Assessment Test scores, and modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea score, and found significant differences between men and women for most functional parameters and comorbidities, and for CAT items of cough, phlegm, and energy.

In logistic regression analysis, predictors for cardiac disease in men were energy, mMRC score, smoking status, body mass index, age, and spirometric lung function, but in women only age was significantly predictive for cardiac disease.

An example of gender effects on COPD differences in men and women is the increase in cigarette advertising aimed at women in the 1960s and the advent of women-targeted brands such as Virginia Slims, which in turn lead to increased smoking rates among women. In addition, in the developing world, where the sex/gender gap in COPD is narrowing, women tend to have greater exposure to wood smoke and cooking fuels in unventilated or poorly ventilated spaces, compared with men.
 

Increasing incidence among women

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, chronic lower respiratory diseases, primarily COPD, were the fourth-leading cause of death in women in the United States in 2018, following only heart disease, cancer, and accidents/injuries.

And as a CDC analysis of data from the 2013 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System showed, women were more likely to report being told by a physician that they had COPD than did men (6.6%, compared with 5.4%).

Dr. Sodhi and colleagues noted that, at all time points examined from 2005 to 2014, women had a higher proportion than men of COPD hospitalizations and in-hospital deaths. They also noted that female sex is associated with a threefold risk for severe early-onset COPD, and that women with COPD have lower diffusion capacity of lungs for carbon monoxide, despite having higher predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second, compared with men.

“Historically, COPD wasn’t a disease that was so prevalent in women. It’s been in the past 20 years that the trends have changed,” said Patricia Silveyra, MSc, PhD, ATSF, associate professor of environmental and occupational health at Indiana University, Bloomington.

The increasing prevalence of COPD among women cannot be explained by smoking alone, she said in an interview.

“It used to be thought that it was because more women smoked, but actually a lot of women who don’t smoke can develop COPD, so it appears to be probably something environmental, but because it used to be a disease of older men, in the clinic there was also a bias to diagnose men with COPD, and women with asthma, so a lot of women went underdiagnosed,” Dr. Silveyra said.

In their review, Dr. Sodhi and colleagues noted that women with COPD “may be underdiagnosed as a result of having different symptoms from those classically recognized. Reasons for underdiagnosis or a delay in diagnosis may also be due to lack of a formal evaluation with spirometry, women seeking care later in the course of disease, physician bias, or associated fatigue or depression misdirecting diagnostic strategies. Underdiagnosis may be associated with psychological distress and worse health-related quality of life.”

Although the evidence is mixed, women tend to present more frequently with the chronic bronchitis phenotype of COPD, compared with the emphysema phenotype, and women tend to have greater degrees of pulmonary function impairment when exposed to tobacco smoke, even after controlling for differences in height and weight.

“For the same amount of exposure to tobacco smoke, females are likely to develop more severe airflow limitation at an earlier age than males, and have more exacerbation,” Dr. Sodhi and colleagues wrote.

Both Dr. Silveyra and Dr. Sodhi said that reason why men and women differ in their physiological reactions to smoke are still unknown.
 

Sex differences in drug responses

There is only limited evidence to indicate that women and men respond differently to various therapeutic agents, but what is clear is that more research into this area is needed, Dr. Sodhi and Dr. Silveyra said.

For example, among the few studies that have documented sex differences, one showed no sex differences in the efficacy of salmeterol/fluticasone combination therapy for reducing exacerbations or improving quality of life, whereas another showed that women were more likely than men to experience COPD symptoms or exacerbations after stopping inhaled corticosteroids, Dr. Sodhi and colleagues noted.

Both Dr. Sodhi and Dr. Silveyra emphasized the need for clinical trials that study the effects of sex on treatment outcomes in COPD, which could lead to better, more personalized therapeutic regimens that take sex and gender into account.

Dr. Sodhi and colleagues offered the following advice to clinicians: “Interaction with female patients should take into account that their symptoms may not conform to traditionally accepted presentations. Challenges exist for female patients at all levels of health care interaction and as clinicians we need to acknowledge the bias and willfully work toward recognition and elimination of unconscious and conscious bias. Empowering our patients to have frank discussions with their health care team when they perceive bias is another step to help promote equity.”

The review by Dr. Sodhi and colleagues was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Sodhi and Dr. Silveyra reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.

When Sigmund Freud claimed that “anatomy is destiny” he was referring to anatomical sex as a determinant of personality traits. Expert consensus statements have previously offered some recommendations for managing these syndromes, but clinical data are scarce, so the present review “is intended to establish a starting point for future research,”

That notion has been widely discredited, but Freud appears to be inadvertently right in one respect: When it comes to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), anatomy really is destiny, and sex may be as well, pulmonary researchers say.

There is a growing body of evidence to indicate that COPD affects men and women differently, and that men and women patients with COPD require different clinical management. Yet women are often underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed, partly because of poorly understood sex differences, but also because of cultural biases.

But plunging any farther into the weeds, it’s important to define terms. Although various investigators have used the terms “sex” and “gender” interchangeably, sex is the preferred term when referring to biological attributes of individual patients, while gender refers to personal identity.

These distinctions are important, contended Amik Sodhi, MBBS, MPH, from the division of allergy, pulmonology, and critical care medicine at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.

“Sex is essentially a biologic construct, so it’s got to do with the sex chromosomes, the genetics of that person, and it refers to the anatomic variations that can change susceptibility to different diseases,” she said in an interview.

An example of sex differences or “sexual dimorphism” can be found in a recent meta-analysis of sex-based genetic associations by Megan Hardin, MD, MPH from Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston and colleagues.

They reported that CELSR1, a gene involved in fetal lung development, was expressed more among women than among men and that a single nucleotide polymorphism in the gene was associated with COPD among women smokers, but not among men smokers.

The finding points to a potential risk locus for COPD in women, and could help shed light on sexual dimorphism in COPD, Dr. Hardin and colleagues said.

In contrast to sex, “gender is more of a psychosocial construct which can impact how diseases manifest themselves, how they are potentially managed, and what outcomes might occur for that particular disease,” Dr. Sodhi said.

She and her colleagues recently published a review of sex and gender in common lung disorders and sleep in the journal CHEST, where they wrote that the “influence of sex and gender is portrayed in epidemiological data, disease pathogenesis and pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, response to treatment, access to care, and health outcomes. Hence, sex and gender should be considered in all types of research, clinical practice and educational curricula.”

For example, as previously reported at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Thoracic Society, sex-specific differences in the severity of symptoms and prevalence of comorbidities in patients with COPD may point to different criteria for diagnosing cardiac comorbidities in women and men.

Those conclusions came from a retrospective analysis of data on 795 women and 1,251 men with GOLD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease) class 1-3 disease.

The investigators looked at the patients’ clinical history, comorbidities, lung function, COPD Assessment Test scores, and modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea score, and found significant differences between men and women for most functional parameters and comorbidities, and for CAT items of cough, phlegm, and energy.

In logistic regression analysis, predictors for cardiac disease in men were energy, mMRC score, smoking status, body mass index, age, and spirometric lung function, but in women only age was significantly predictive for cardiac disease.

An example of gender effects on COPD differences in men and women is the increase in cigarette advertising aimed at women in the 1960s and the advent of women-targeted brands such as Virginia Slims, which in turn lead to increased smoking rates among women. In addition, in the developing world, where the sex/gender gap in COPD is narrowing, women tend to have greater exposure to wood smoke and cooking fuels in unventilated or poorly ventilated spaces, compared with men.
 

Increasing incidence among women

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, chronic lower respiratory diseases, primarily COPD, were the fourth-leading cause of death in women in the United States in 2018, following only heart disease, cancer, and accidents/injuries.

And as a CDC analysis of data from the 2013 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System showed, women were more likely to report being told by a physician that they had COPD than did men (6.6%, compared with 5.4%).

Dr. Sodhi and colleagues noted that, at all time points examined from 2005 to 2014, women had a higher proportion than men of COPD hospitalizations and in-hospital deaths. They also noted that female sex is associated with a threefold risk for severe early-onset COPD, and that women with COPD have lower diffusion capacity of lungs for carbon monoxide, despite having higher predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second, compared with men.

“Historically, COPD wasn’t a disease that was so prevalent in women. It’s been in the past 20 years that the trends have changed,” said Patricia Silveyra, MSc, PhD, ATSF, associate professor of environmental and occupational health at Indiana University, Bloomington.

The increasing prevalence of COPD among women cannot be explained by smoking alone, she said in an interview.

“It used to be thought that it was because more women smoked, but actually a lot of women who don’t smoke can develop COPD, so it appears to be probably something environmental, but because it used to be a disease of older men, in the clinic there was also a bias to diagnose men with COPD, and women with asthma, so a lot of women went underdiagnosed,” Dr. Silveyra said.

In their review, Dr. Sodhi and colleagues noted that women with COPD “may be underdiagnosed as a result of having different symptoms from those classically recognized. Reasons for underdiagnosis or a delay in diagnosis may also be due to lack of a formal evaluation with spirometry, women seeking care later in the course of disease, physician bias, or associated fatigue or depression misdirecting diagnostic strategies. Underdiagnosis may be associated with psychological distress and worse health-related quality of life.”

Although the evidence is mixed, women tend to present more frequently with the chronic bronchitis phenotype of COPD, compared with the emphysema phenotype, and women tend to have greater degrees of pulmonary function impairment when exposed to tobacco smoke, even after controlling for differences in height and weight.

“For the same amount of exposure to tobacco smoke, females are likely to develop more severe airflow limitation at an earlier age than males, and have more exacerbation,” Dr. Sodhi and colleagues wrote.

Both Dr. Silveyra and Dr. Sodhi said that reason why men and women differ in their physiological reactions to smoke are still unknown.
 

Sex differences in drug responses

There is only limited evidence to indicate that women and men respond differently to various therapeutic agents, but what is clear is that more research into this area is needed, Dr. Sodhi and Dr. Silveyra said.

For example, among the few studies that have documented sex differences, one showed no sex differences in the efficacy of salmeterol/fluticasone combination therapy for reducing exacerbations or improving quality of life, whereas another showed that women were more likely than men to experience COPD symptoms or exacerbations after stopping inhaled corticosteroids, Dr. Sodhi and colleagues noted.

Both Dr. Sodhi and Dr. Silveyra emphasized the need for clinical trials that study the effects of sex on treatment outcomes in COPD, which could lead to better, more personalized therapeutic regimens that take sex and gender into account.

Dr. Sodhi and colleagues offered the following advice to clinicians: “Interaction with female patients should take into account that their symptoms may not conform to traditionally accepted presentations. Challenges exist for female patients at all levels of health care interaction and as clinicians we need to acknowledge the bias and willfully work toward recognition and elimination of unconscious and conscious bias. Empowering our patients to have frank discussions with their health care team when they perceive bias is another step to help promote equity.”

The review by Dr. Sodhi and colleagues was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Sodhi and Dr. Silveyra reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, with funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, studied the CDC’s “Learn the Signs. Act Early” developmental surveillance milestones for children 0-5 years to update the milestones based on published studies. The goal was to improve this tool for developmental surveillance and use by the public. Developmental surveillance is not just observing a child at a check-up but rather “is a longitudinal process that involves eliciting concerns, taking a developmental history based on milestone attainment, observing milestones and other behaviors, examining the child, and applying clinical judgment during health supervision visits (HSVs).”¹

While the milestones we were trained on were a good start and highlighted the developmental progression central to pediatrics, they were not based on norms or cut scores indicating significant developmental risk unless taught from a validated tool. The CDC was concerned that their public handouts and apps were based on median ages (middle number of the entire range) of attainment not the mode (most common) or even average ages. That means that about half of all typically developing children would “not have attained” that skill at the age noted, potentially evoking unnecessary concern for parents and a “wait-and-see” message from a knowledgeable provider who realized the statistical meaning and the broad range of normal. Another potential problem with using milestones set at the median age is that parents, especially those with several children or experienced friends, may see the provider as an alarmist when they have seen great variation in children who later were normal. This reaction can dampen provider willingness to discuss development or even to screen with validated tools. We have learned the hard way from COVID-19 that it is difficult to convey concepts of risk effectively both balancing fear and stimulating action.

The AAP experts reviewed the English literature for data-based milestones, finding 34 articles, 10 of which had an opinion for at least one milestone. If this sounds like a very small number, you are correct. You may not realize that almost all screening and diagnostic tools have been based on data collected by Gesell in 1928!² While most of health care has changed since then, which milestones are measured in infants has not.

The biggest change from this review was deciding to use as milestones skills reported for 75% of children at each age of typical HSVs, adding ones for 15 and 30 months. The implication is that children not attaining these milestones are all at risk and deserving of more careful history, examination, and administration of a validated screening tool; not true when based on median data. Of the 94 existing CDC milestones retained after the review, one-third were moved to a different age with 21 of 31 assigned to an older age. Domains of functioning for the milestones were consolidated into social emotional, cognitive, language/communication, and motor, to help parents learn to distinguish these areas, and, although many milestones reflect several domains, each was included only once to reduce confusion.

Psychosocial assessment is recommended by the AAP and Bright Futures at every HSV but the fewest milestones with normative data were identified for this domain, often self-help rather than social engagement or emotion regulation skills. The cross-cultural study cited for many of the new milestones was reassuring overall in that the median ages for 67%-88% of milestones in most domains were equivalent across the four countries sampled, but only 22% of self-help skills were equivalent.³ This should remind us that parenting has more influence over psychosocial skills than other domains. Psychosocial and behavioral functioning, especially emotional regulation, also deserve “surveillance” as they have enormous impact on life outcomes but need to be measured and supported differently. Routine use of validated tools such as the Early Childhood Screening Assessment or the Ages & Stages Questionnaires: Social-Emotional for these domains are also needed.

Normal variations in temperament and patterns of attachment can affect many milestones including courage for walking, exploration, social engagement, and prosocial behaviors or self-control for social situations, attention, range of affect, and cooperation. All of these skills are among the 42 total (14 new) social-emotional milestones for 0- to 5-year-olds. Variations in these functions are at the root of the most common “challenging behaviors” in our studies in primary care. They are also the most vulnerable to suboptimal parent-child relationships, adverse childhood experiences, and social determinants of health.

As primary care providers, we not only need to detect children at risk for developmental problems but also promote and celebrate developmental progress. I hope that changing the threshold for concern to 75% will allow for a more positive review with the family (as fewer will be flagged as at risk) and chance to congratulate parents on all that is going well. But I also hope the change will not make us overlook parenting challenges, often from the psychosocial milestones most amenable to our guidance and support.

Early identification is mainly important to obtain the early intervention shown to improve outcomes. However, less than 25% of children with delays or disabilities receive early intervention before age 3 and most with emotional, behavioral, and developmental conditions, other than autism spectrum disorder, not before age 5. Since early intervention services are freely available in all states, we also need to do better at getting children to this care.

Let’s reconsider the process of developmental surveillance in this light of delayed referral: “Eliciting concerns” is key as parents have been shown to be usually correct in their worries. Listening to how they express the concerns can help you connect their specific issues when discussing reasons for referral. While most parent “recall of past milestones” is not accurate, current milestones reported are; thus, the need to have the new more accurate norms for all ages for comparison. When we make observations of a child’s abilities and behaviors ourselves we may not only pick up on issues missed by the parent, but will be more convincing in conveying the need for referral when indicated. When we “examine” the child we can use our professional skills to determine the very important risk factor of the quality of how a skill is performed, not just that it is. The recommended “use of validated screening tools” when the new milestones are not met give us an objective tool to share with parents, more confidence in when referral is warranted, which we will convey to parents (and perhaps skeptical relatives), and baseline documentation from which we can “track” referrals, progress, and, hopefully, better outcomes.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Zubler JM et al. Pediatrics. 2022;149(3):e2021052138.

2. Gessell A et al. Macmillan: New York, 1928.

3. Ertem IO et al. Lancet Glob Health. 2018 Mar;6(3):e279-91.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, with funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, studied the CDC’s “Learn the Signs. Act Early” developmental surveillance milestones for children 0-5 years to update the milestones based on published studies. The goal was to improve this tool for developmental surveillance and use by the public. Developmental surveillance is not just observing a child at a check-up but rather “is a longitudinal process that involves eliciting concerns, taking a developmental history based on milestone attainment, observing milestones and other behaviors, examining the child, and applying clinical judgment during health supervision visits (HSVs).”¹

While the milestones we were trained on were a good start and highlighted the developmental progression central to pediatrics, they were not based on norms or cut scores indicating significant developmental risk unless taught from a validated tool. The CDC was concerned that their public handouts and apps were based on median ages (middle number of the entire range) of attainment not the mode (most common) or even average ages. That means that about half of all typically developing children would “not have attained” that skill at the age noted, potentially evoking unnecessary concern for parents and a “wait-and-see” message from a knowledgeable provider who realized the statistical meaning and the broad range of normal. Another potential problem with using milestones set at the median age is that parents, especially those with several children or experienced friends, may see the provider as an alarmist when they have seen great variation in children who later were normal. This reaction can dampen provider willingness to discuss development or even to screen with validated tools. We have learned the hard way from COVID-19 that it is difficult to convey concepts of risk effectively both balancing fear and stimulating action.

The AAP experts reviewed the English literature for data-based milestones, finding 34 articles, 10 of which had an opinion for at least one milestone. If this sounds like a very small number, you are correct. You may not realize that almost all screening and diagnostic tools have been based on data collected by Gesell in 1928!² While most of health care has changed since then, which milestones are measured in infants has not.

The biggest change from this review was deciding to use as milestones skills reported for 75% of children at each age of typical HSVs, adding ones for 15 and 30 months. The implication is that children not attaining these milestones are all at risk and deserving of more careful history, examination, and administration of a validated screening tool; not true when based on median data. Of the 94 existing CDC milestones retained after the review, one-third were moved to a different age with 21 of 31 assigned to an older age. Domains of functioning for the milestones were consolidated into social emotional, cognitive, language/communication, and motor, to help parents learn to distinguish these areas, and, although many milestones reflect several domains, each was included only once to reduce confusion.

Psychosocial assessment is recommended by the AAP and Bright Futures at every HSV but the fewest milestones with normative data were identified for this domain, often self-help rather than social engagement or emotion regulation skills. The cross-cultural study cited for many of the new milestones was reassuring overall in that the median ages for 67%-88% of milestones in most domains were equivalent across the four countries sampled, but only 22% of self-help skills were equivalent.³ This should remind us that parenting has more influence over psychosocial skills than other domains. Psychosocial and behavioral functioning, especially emotional regulation, also deserve “surveillance” as they have enormous impact on life outcomes but need to be measured and supported differently. Routine use of validated tools such as the Early Childhood Screening Assessment or the Ages & Stages Questionnaires: Social-Emotional for these domains are also needed.

Normal variations in temperament and patterns of attachment can affect many milestones including courage for walking, exploration, social engagement, and prosocial behaviors or self-control for social situations, attention, range of affect, and cooperation. All of these skills are among the 42 total (14 new) social-emotional milestones for 0- to 5-year-olds. Variations in these functions are at the root of the most common “challenging behaviors” in our studies in primary care. They are also the most vulnerable to suboptimal parent-child relationships, adverse childhood experiences, and social determinants of health.

As primary care providers, we not only need to detect children at risk for developmental problems but also promote and celebrate developmental progress. I hope that changing the threshold for concern to 75% will allow for a more positive review with the family (as fewer will be flagged as at risk) and chance to congratulate parents on all that is going well. But I also hope the change will not make us overlook parenting challenges, often from the psychosocial milestones most amenable to our guidance and support.

Early identification is mainly important to obtain the early intervention shown to improve outcomes. However, less than 25% of children with delays or disabilities receive early intervention before age 3 and most with emotional, behavioral, and developmental conditions, other than autism spectrum disorder, not before age 5. Since early intervention services are freely available in all states, we also need to do better at getting children to this care.

Let’s reconsider the process of developmental surveillance in this light of delayed referral: “Eliciting concerns” is key as parents have been shown to be usually correct in their worries. Listening to how they express the concerns can help you connect their specific issues when discussing reasons for referral. While most parent “recall of past milestones” is not accurate, current milestones reported are; thus, the need to have the new more accurate norms for all ages for comparison. When we make observations of a child’s abilities and behaviors ourselves we may not only pick up on issues missed by the parent, but will be more convincing in conveying the need for referral when indicated. When we “examine” the child we can use our professional skills to determine the very important risk factor of the quality of how a skill is performed, not just that it is. The recommended “use of validated screening tools” when the new milestones are not met give us an objective tool to share with parents, more confidence in when referral is warranted, which we will convey to parents (and perhaps skeptical relatives), and baseline documentation from which we can “track” referrals, progress, and, hopefully, better outcomes.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Zubler JM et al. Pediatrics. 2022;149(3):e2021052138.

2. Gessell A et al. Macmillan: New York, 1928.

3. Ertem IO et al. Lancet Glob Health. 2018 Mar;6(3):e279-91.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, with funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, studied the CDC’s “Learn the Signs. Act Early” developmental surveillance milestones for children 0-5 years to update the milestones based on published studies. The goal was to improve this tool for developmental surveillance and use by the public. Developmental surveillance is not just observing a child at a check-up but rather “is a longitudinal process that involves eliciting concerns, taking a developmental history based on milestone attainment, observing milestones and other behaviors, examining the child, and applying clinical judgment during health supervision visits (HSVs).”¹

While the milestones we were trained on were a good start and highlighted the developmental progression central to pediatrics, they were not based on norms or cut scores indicating significant developmental risk unless taught from a validated tool. The CDC was concerned that their public handouts and apps were based on median ages (middle number of the entire range) of attainment not the mode (most common) or even average ages. That means that about half of all typically developing children would “not have attained” that skill at the age noted, potentially evoking unnecessary concern for parents and a “wait-and-see” message from a knowledgeable provider who realized the statistical meaning and the broad range of normal. Another potential problem with using milestones set at the median age is that parents, especially those with several children or experienced friends, may see the provider as an alarmist when they have seen great variation in children who later were normal. This reaction can dampen provider willingness to discuss development or even to screen with validated tools. We have learned the hard way from COVID-19 that it is difficult to convey concepts of risk effectively both balancing fear and stimulating action.

The AAP experts reviewed the English literature for data-based milestones, finding 34 articles, 10 of which had an opinion for at least one milestone. If this sounds like a very small number, you are correct. You may not realize that almost all screening and diagnostic tools have been based on data collected by Gesell in 1928!² While most of health care has changed since then, which milestones are measured in infants has not.

The biggest change from this review was deciding to use as milestones skills reported for 75% of children at each age of typical HSVs, adding ones for 15 and 30 months. The implication is that children not attaining these milestones are all at risk and deserving of more careful history, examination, and administration of a validated screening tool; not true when based on median data. Of the 94 existing CDC milestones retained after the review, one-third were moved to a different age with 21 of 31 assigned to an older age. Domains of functioning for the milestones were consolidated into social emotional, cognitive, language/communication, and motor, to help parents learn to distinguish these areas, and, although many milestones reflect several domains, each was included only once to reduce confusion.

Psychosocial assessment is recommended by the AAP and Bright Futures at every HSV but the fewest milestones with normative data were identified for this domain, often self-help rather than social engagement or emotion regulation skills. The cross-cultural study cited for many of the new milestones was reassuring overall in that the median ages for 67%-88% of milestones in most domains were equivalent across the four countries sampled, but only 22% of self-help skills were equivalent.³ This should remind us that parenting has more influence over psychosocial skills than other domains. Psychosocial and behavioral functioning, especially emotional regulation, also deserve “surveillance” as they have enormous impact on life outcomes but need to be measured and supported differently. Routine use of validated tools such as the Early Childhood Screening Assessment or the Ages & Stages Questionnaires: Social-Emotional for these domains are also needed.

Normal variations in temperament and patterns of attachment can affect many milestones including courage for walking, exploration, social engagement, and prosocial behaviors or self-control for social situations, attention, range of affect, and cooperation. All of these skills are among the 42 total (14 new) social-emotional milestones for 0- to 5-year-olds. Variations in these functions are at the root of the most common “challenging behaviors” in our studies in primary care. They are also the most vulnerable to suboptimal parent-child relationships, adverse childhood experiences, and social determinants of health.

As primary care providers, we not only need to detect children at risk for developmental problems but also promote and celebrate developmental progress. I hope that changing the threshold for concern to 75% will allow for a more positive review with the family (as fewer will be flagged as at risk) and chance to congratulate parents on all that is going well. But I also hope the change will not make us overlook parenting challenges, often from the psychosocial milestones most amenable to our guidance and support.

Early identification is mainly important to obtain the early intervention shown to improve outcomes. However, less than 25% of children with delays or disabilities receive early intervention before age 3 and most with emotional, behavioral, and developmental conditions, other than autism spectrum disorder, not before age 5. Since early intervention services are freely available in all states, we also need to do better at getting children to this care.

Let’s reconsider the process of developmental surveillance in this light of delayed referral: “Eliciting concerns” is key as parents have been shown to be usually correct in their worries. Listening to how they express the concerns can help you connect their specific issues when discussing reasons for referral. While most parent “recall of past milestones” is not accurate, current milestones reported are; thus, the need to have the new more accurate norms for all ages for comparison. When we make observations of a child’s abilities and behaviors ourselves we may not only pick up on issues missed by the parent, but will be more convincing in conveying the need for referral when indicated. When we “examine” the child we can use our professional skills to determine the very important risk factor of the quality of how a skill is performed, not just that it is. The recommended “use of validated screening tools” when the new milestones are not met give us an objective tool to share with parents, more confidence in when referral is warranted, which we will convey to parents (and perhaps skeptical relatives), and baseline documentation from which we can “track” referrals, progress, and, hopefully, better outcomes.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Zubler JM et al. Pediatrics. 2022;149(3):e2021052138.

2. Gessell A et al. Macmillan: New York, 1928.

3. Ertem IO et al. Lancet Glob Health. 2018 Mar;6(3):e279-91.

Photographs courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD.

THE PRESENTATION

A Early central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia with a small central patch of hair loss in a 45-year-old Black woman.

B Late central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia with a large central patch of hair loss in a 43-year-old Black woman.

Scarring alopecia is a collection of hair loss disorders including chronic cutaneous lupus erythematosus (discoid lupus), lichen planopilaris, dissecting cellulitis, acne keloidalis, and central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA).¹ Central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (formerly hot comb alopecia or follicular degeneration syndrome) is a progressive, scarring, inflammatory alopecia and represents the most common form of scarring alopecia in women of African descent. It results in permanent destruction of hair follicles.

Epidemiology

Central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia predominantly affects women of African descent but also may affect men. The prevalence of CCCA in those of African descent has varied in the literature. Khumalo² reported a prevalence of 1.2% for women younger than 50 years and 6.7% in women older than 50 years. Central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia has been reported in other ethnic groups, such as those of Asian descent.³

Historically, hair care practices that are more common in those of African descent, such as high-tension hairstyles as well as heat and chemical hair relaxers, were implicated in the development of CCCA. However, the causes of CCCA are most likely multifactorial, including family history, genetic mutations, and hair care practices.^4-7PADI3 mutations likely predispose some women to CCCA. Mutations in PADI3, which encodes peptidyl arginine deiminase 3 (an enzyme that modifies proteins crucial for the formation of hair shafts), were found in some patients with CCCA.⁸ Moreover, other genetic defects also likely play a role.⁷

Key clinical features

Early recognition is key for patients with CCCA.

• Central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia begins in the central scalp (crown area, vertex) and spreads centrifugally.

• Scalp symptoms such as tenderness, pain, a tingling or crawling sensation, and itching may occur.⁹ Some patients may not have any symptoms at all, and hair loss may progress painlessly.

• Central hair breakage—forme fruste CCCA—may be a presenting sign of CCCA.⁹

• Loss of follicular ostia and mottled hypopigmented and hyperpigmented macules are common findings.⁶

• Central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia can be diagnosed clinically and by histopathology.

Worth noting

Patients may experience hair loss and scalp symptoms for years before seeking medical evaluation. In some cultures, hair breakage or itching on the top of the scalp may be viewed as a normal occurrence in life.

It is important to set patient expectations that CCCA is a scarring alopecia, and the initial goal often is to maintain the patient's existing hair. However, hair and areas responding to treatment should still be treated. Without any intervention, the resulting scarring from CCCA may permanently scar follicles on the entire scalp.

Due to the inflammatory nature of CCCA, potent topical corticosteroids (eg, clobetasol propionate), intralesional corticosteroids (eg, triamcinolone acetonide), and oral anti-inflammatory agents (eg, doxycycline) are utilized in the treatment of CCCA. Minoxidil is another treatment option. Adjuvant therapies such as topical metformin also have been tried.¹⁰ Importantly, treatment of CCCA may halt further permanent destruction of hair follicles, but scalp symptoms may reappear periodically and require re-treatment with anti-inflammatory agents.

Health care highlight

Thorough scalp examination and awareness of clinical features of CCCA may prompt earlier diagnosis and prevent future severe permanent alopecia. Clinicians should encourage patients with suggestive signs or symptoms of CCCA to seek care from a dermatologist.

Photographs courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD.

THE PRESENTATION

A Early central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia with a small central patch of hair loss in a 45-year-old Black woman.

B Late central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia with a large central patch of hair loss in a 43-year-old Black woman.

Scarring alopecia is a collection of hair loss disorders including chronic cutaneous lupus erythematosus (discoid lupus), lichen planopilaris, dissecting cellulitis, acne keloidalis, and central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA).¹ Central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (formerly hot comb alopecia or follicular degeneration syndrome) is a progressive, scarring, inflammatory alopecia and represents the most common form of scarring alopecia in women of African descent. It results in permanent destruction of hair follicles.

Epidemiology

Central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia predominantly affects women of African descent but also may affect men. The prevalence of CCCA in those of African descent has varied in the literature. Khumalo² reported a prevalence of 1.2% for women younger than 50 years and 6.7% in women older than 50 years. Central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia has been reported in other ethnic groups, such as those of Asian descent.³

Historically, hair care practices that are more common in those of African descent, such as high-tension hairstyles as well as heat and chemical hair relaxers, were implicated in the development of CCCA. However, the causes of CCCA are most likely multifactorial, including family history, genetic mutations, and hair care practices.^4-7PADI3 mutations likely predispose some women to CCCA. Mutations in PADI3, which encodes peptidyl arginine deiminase 3 (an enzyme that modifies proteins crucial for the formation of hair shafts), were found in some patients with CCCA.⁸ Moreover, other genetic defects also likely play a role.⁷

Key clinical features

Early recognition is key for patients with CCCA.

• Central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia begins in the central scalp (crown area, vertex) and spreads centrifugally.

• Scalp symptoms such as tenderness, pain, a tingling or crawling sensation, and itching may occur.⁹ Some patients may not have any symptoms at all, and hair loss may progress painlessly.

• Central hair breakage—forme fruste CCCA—may be a presenting sign of CCCA.⁹

• Loss of follicular ostia and mottled hypopigmented and hyperpigmented macules are common findings.⁶

• Central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia can be diagnosed clinically and by histopathology.

Worth noting

Patients may experience hair loss and scalp symptoms for years before seeking medical evaluation. In some cultures, hair breakage or itching on the top of the scalp may be viewed as a normal occurrence in life.

It is important to set patient expectations that CCCA is a scarring alopecia, and the initial goal often is to maintain the patient's existing hair. However, hair and areas responding to treatment should still be treated. Without any intervention, the resulting scarring from CCCA may permanently scar follicles on the entire scalp.

Due to the inflammatory nature of CCCA, potent topical corticosteroids (eg, clobetasol propionate), intralesional corticosteroids (eg, triamcinolone acetonide), and oral anti-inflammatory agents (eg, doxycycline) are utilized in the treatment of CCCA. Minoxidil is another treatment option. Adjuvant therapies such as topical metformin also have been tried.¹⁰ Importantly, treatment of CCCA may halt further permanent destruction of hair follicles, but scalp symptoms may reappear periodically and require re-treatment with anti-inflammatory agents.

Health care highlight

Thorough scalp examination and awareness of clinical features of CCCA may prompt earlier diagnosis and prevent future severe permanent alopecia. Clinicians should encourage patients with suggestive signs or symptoms of CCCA to seek care from a dermatologist.

Photographs courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD.

THE PRESENTATION

A Early central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia with a small central patch of hair loss in a 45-year-old Black woman.

B Late central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia with a large central patch of hair loss in a 43-year-old Black woman.

Scarring alopecia is a collection of hair loss disorders including chronic cutaneous lupus erythematosus (discoid lupus), lichen planopilaris, dissecting cellulitis, acne keloidalis, and central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA).¹ Central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (formerly hot comb alopecia or follicular degeneration syndrome) is a progressive, scarring, inflammatory alopecia and represents the most common form of scarring alopecia in women of African descent. It results in permanent destruction of hair follicles.

Epidemiology

Central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia predominantly affects women of African descent but also may affect men. The prevalence of CCCA in those of African descent has varied in the literature. Khumalo² reported a prevalence of 1.2% for women younger than 50 years and 6.7% in women older than 50 years. Central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia has been reported in other ethnic groups, such as those of Asian descent.³

Historically, hair care practices that are more common in those of African descent, such as high-tension hairstyles as well as heat and chemical hair relaxers, were implicated in the development of CCCA. However, the causes of CCCA are most likely multifactorial, including family history, genetic mutations, and hair care practices.^4-7PADI3 mutations likely predispose some women to CCCA. Mutations in PADI3, which encodes peptidyl arginine deiminase 3 (an enzyme that modifies proteins crucial for the formation of hair shafts), were found in some patients with CCCA.⁸ Moreover, other genetic defects also likely play a role.⁷

Key clinical features

Early recognition is key for patients with CCCA.

• Central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia begins in the central scalp (crown area, vertex) and spreads centrifugally.

• Scalp symptoms such as tenderness, pain, a tingling or crawling sensation, and itching may occur.⁹ Some patients may not have any symptoms at all, and hair loss may progress painlessly.

• Central hair breakage—forme fruste CCCA—may be a presenting sign of CCCA.⁹

• Loss of follicular ostia and mottled hypopigmented and hyperpigmented macules are common findings.⁶

• Central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia can be diagnosed clinically and by histopathology.

Worth noting

Patients may experience hair loss and scalp symptoms for years before seeking medical evaluation. In some cultures, hair breakage or itching on the top of the scalp may be viewed as a normal occurrence in life.

It is important to set patient expectations that CCCA is a scarring alopecia, and the initial goal often is to maintain the patient's existing hair. However, hair and areas responding to treatment should still be treated. Without any intervention, the resulting scarring from CCCA may permanently scar follicles on the entire scalp.

Due to the inflammatory nature of CCCA, potent topical corticosteroids (eg, clobetasol propionate), intralesional corticosteroids (eg, triamcinolone acetonide), and oral anti-inflammatory agents (eg, doxycycline) are utilized in the treatment of CCCA. Minoxidil is another treatment option. Adjuvant therapies such as topical metformin also have been tried.¹⁰ Importantly, treatment of CCCA may halt further permanent destruction of hair follicles, but scalp symptoms may reappear periodically and require re-treatment with anti-inflammatory agents.

Health care highlight

Thorough scalp examination and awareness of clinical features of CCCA may prompt earlier diagnosis and prevent future severe permanent alopecia. Clinicians should encourage patients with suggestive signs or symptoms of CCCA to seek care from a dermatologist.

BOSTON – Among dermatology residents and attending dermatologists, rates of diagnostic accuracy and appropriate biopsy recommendations were significantly lower for patients with skin of color, compared with White patients, new research shows.

“Our findings suggest diagnostic biases based on skin color exist in dermatology practice,” lead author Loren Krueger, MD, assistant professor in the department of dermatology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, said at the Annual Skin of Color Society Scientific Symposium. “A lower likelihood of biopsy of malignancy in darker skin types could contribute to disparities in cutaneous malignancies,” she added.

Dr. Loren Krueger

The findings underscore that “for skin of color patients, you’re more likely to have a benign neoplasm biopsied, you’re less likely to have a malignant neoplasm biopsied, and more often, your etiology may be missed,” Dr. Krueger said at the meeting.

Of note, while 45% of respondents were dermatology residents or fellows, 20.4% had 1-5 years of experience, and about 28% had 10 to more than 25 years of experience.

And while 75% of the dermatology residents, fellows, and attendings were White, there was no difference in the probability of correctly identifying the underlying etiology in dark or light skin types based on the provider’s self-identified race.

Importantly, the patterns in the study of diagnostic discrepancies are reflected in broader dermatologic outcomes. The 5-year melanoma survival rate is 74.1% among Black patients and 92.9% among White patients. Dr. Krueger referred to data showing that only 52.6% of Black patients have stage I melanoma at diagnosis, whereas among White patients, the rate is much higher, at 75.9%.

“We know skin malignancy can be more aggressive and late-stage in skin of color populations, leading to increased morbidity and later stage at initial diagnosis,” Dr. Krueger told this news organization. “We routinely attribute this to limited access to care and lack of awareness on skin malignancy. However, we have no evidence on how we, as dermatologists, may be playing a role.”

Furthermore, the decision to perform biopsy or not can affect the size and stage at diagnosis of a cutaneous malignancy, she noted.

Key changes needed to prevent the disparities – and their implications – should start at the training level, she emphasized. “I would love to see increased photo representation in training materials – this is a great place to start,” Dr. Krueger said.

In addition, “encouraging medical students, residents, and dermatologists to learn from skin of color experts is vital,” she said. “We should also provide hands-on experience and training with diverse patient populations.”

The first step to addressing biases “is to acknowledge they exist,” Dr. Krueger added. “I am hopeful this inspires others to continue to investigate these biases, as well as how we can eliminate them.”

The study was funded by the Rudin Resident Research Award. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON – Among dermatology residents and attending dermatologists, rates of diagnostic accuracy and appropriate biopsy recommendations were significantly lower for patients with skin of color, compared with White patients, new research shows.

“Our findings suggest diagnostic biases based on skin color exist in dermatology practice,” lead author Loren Krueger, MD, assistant professor in the department of dermatology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, said at the Annual Skin of Color Society Scientific Symposium. “A lower likelihood of biopsy of malignancy in darker skin types could contribute to disparities in cutaneous malignancies,” she added.

Dr. Loren Krueger

The findings underscore that “for skin of color patients, you’re more likely to have a benign neoplasm biopsied, you’re less likely to have a malignant neoplasm biopsied, and more often, your etiology may be missed,” Dr. Krueger said at the meeting.

Of note, while 45% of respondents were dermatology residents or fellows, 20.4% had 1-5 years of experience, and about 28% had 10 to more than 25 years of experience.

And while 75% of the dermatology residents, fellows, and attendings were White, there was no difference in the probability of correctly identifying the underlying etiology in dark or light skin types based on the provider’s self-identified race.

Importantly, the patterns in the study of diagnostic discrepancies are reflected in broader dermatologic outcomes. The 5-year melanoma survival rate is 74.1% among Black patients and 92.9% among White patients. Dr. Krueger referred to data showing that only 52.6% of Black patients have stage I melanoma at diagnosis, whereas among White patients, the rate is much higher, at 75.9%.

“We know skin malignancy can be more aggressive and late-stage in skin of color populations, leading to increased morbidity and later stage at initial diagnosis,” Dr. Krueger told this news organization. “We routinely attribute this to limited access to care and lack of awareness on skin malignancy. However, we have no evidence on how we, as dermatologists, may be playing a role.”

Furthermore, the decision to perform biopsy or not can affect the size and stage at diagnosis of a cutaneous malignancy, she noted.

Key changes needed to prevent the disparities – and their implications – should start at the training level, she emphasized. “I would love to see increased photo representation in training materials – this is a great place to start,” Dr. Krueger said.

In addition, “encouraging medical students, residents, and dermatologists to learn from skin of color experts is vital,” she said. “We should also provide hands-on experience and training with diverse patient populations.”

The first step to addressing biases “is to acknowledge they exist,” Dr. Krueger added. “I am hopeful this inspires others to continue to investigate these biases, as well as how we can eliminate them.”

The study was funded by the Rudin Resident Research Award. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON – Among dermatology residents and attending dermatologists, rates of diagnostic accuracy and appropriate biopsy recommendations were significantly lower for patients with skin of color, compared with White patients, new research shows.

“Our findings suggest diagnostic biases based on skin color exist in dermatology practice,” lead author Loren Krueger, MD, assistant professor in the department of dermatology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, said at the Annual Skin of Color Society Scientific Symposium. “A lower likelihood of biopsy of malignancy in darker skin types could contribute to disparities in cutaneous malignancies,” she added.

Dr. Loren Krueger

The findings underscore that “for skin of color patients, you’re more likely to have a benign neoplasm biopsied, you’re less likely to have a malignant neoplasm biopsied, and more often, your etiology may be missed,” Dr. Krueger said at the meeting.

Of note, while 45% of respondents were dermatology residents or fellows, 20.4% had 1-5 years of experience, and about 28% had 10 to more than 25 years of experience.

And while 75% of the dermatology residents, fellows, and attendings were White, there was no difference in the probability of correctly identifying the underlying etiology in dark or light skin types based on the provider’s self-identified race.

Importantly, the patterns in the study of diagnostic discrepancies are reflected in broader dermatologic outcomes. The 5-year melanoma survival rate is 74.1% among Black patients and 92.9% among White patients. Dr. Krueger referred to data showing that only 52.6% of Black patients have stage I melanoma at diagnosis, whereas among White patients, the rate is much higher, at 75.9%.

“We know skin malignancy can be more aggressive and late-stage in skin of color populations, leading to increased morbidity and later stage at initial diagnosis,” Dr. Krueger told this news organization. “We routinely attribute this to limited access to care and lack of awareness on skin malignancy. However, we have no evidence on how we, as dermatologists, may be playing a role.”

Furthermore, the decision to perform biopsy or not can affect the size and stage at diagnosis of a cutaneous malignancy, she noted.

Key changes needed to prevent the disparities – and their implications – should start at the training level, she emphasized. “I would love to see increased photo representation in training materials – this is a great place to start,” Dr. Krueger said.

In addition, “encouraging medical students, residents, and dermatologists to learn from skin of color experts is vital,” she said. “We should also provide hands-on experience and training with diverse patient populations.”

The first step to addressing biases “is to acknowledge they exist,” Dr. Krueger added. “I am hopeful this inspires others to continue to investigate these biases, as well as how we can eliminate them.”

The study was funded by the Rudin Resident Research Award. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2021, state lawmakers introduced a record number of bills that would affect transgender and gender-diverse people. The vast majority were focused on transgender and gender-diverse youth in particular. We’ve seen bills that would take away gender-affirming medical care for minors, ones that would force trans kids to play on sports teams that don’t match their gender identity, and others that would ban trans kids from public facilities like bathrooms that match their gender identities.

These bills aren’t particularly new, but state lawmakers are putting more energy into them than ever. In response, some public figures have started pushing back. Ariana Grande just pledged to match up to 1.5 million dollars in donations to combat anti–trans youth legislative initiatives. However, doctors have been underrepresented in the political discourse.

Sadly, much of the discussion in this area has been driven by wild speculation and emotional rhetoric. It’s rare that we see actual data brought to the table. As clinicians and scientists, we have a responsibility to highlight the data relevant to these legislative debates, and to share them with our representatives. I’m going to break down what we know quantitatively about each of these issues, so that you’ll feel empowered to bring that information to these debates. My hope is that we can move toward evidence-based public policy instead of rhetoric-based public policy, so that we can ensure the best health possible for young people around the country.
 

Bathroom bills

Though they’ve been less of a focus recently, politicians for years have argued that trans people should be forced to use bathrooms and other public facilities that match their sex assigned at birth, not their gender identity. Their central argument is that trans-inclusive public facility policies will result in higher rates of assault. Published peer-review data show this isn’t true. A 2019 study in Sexuality Research and Social Policy examined the impacts of trans-inclusive public facility policies and found they resulted in no increase in assaults among the general (mostly cisgender) population. Another 2019 study in Pediatrics found that trans-inclusive facility policies were associated with lower odds of sexual assault victimization against transgender youth. The myth that trans-inclusive public facilities increase assault risk is simply that: a myth. All existing data indicate that trans-inclusive policies will improve public safety.

Sports bills

One of the hottest debates recently involves whether transgender girls should be allowed to participate in girls’ sports teams. Those in favor of these bills argue that transgender girls have an innate biological sports advantage over cisgender girls, and if allowed to compete in girls’ sports leagues, they will dominate the events, and cisgender girls will no longer win sports titles. The bills feed into longstanding assumptions – those who were assigned male at birth are strong, and those who were assigned female at birth are weak.

But evidence doesn’t show that trans women dominate female sports leagues. It turns out, there are shockingly few transgender athletes competing in sports leagues around the United States, and even fewer winning major titles. When the Associated Press conducted an investigation asking lawmakers introducing such sports bills to name trans athletes in their states, most couldn’t point to a single one. After Utah state legislators passed a trans sports ban, Governor Spencer Cox vetoed it, pointing out that, of 75,000 high school kids participating in sports in Utah, there was only a single transgender girl (the state legislature overrode the veto anyway).

California has explicitly protected the rights of trans athletes to compete on sports teams that match their gender identity since 2013. There’s still an underrepresentation of trans athletes in sports participation and titles. This is likely because the deck is stacked against these young people in so many other ways that are unrelated to testosterone levels. Trans youth suffer from high rates of harassment, discrimination, and subsequent anxiety and depression that make it difficult to compete in and excel in sports.
 

Medical bills

State legislators have introduced bills around the country that would criminalize the provision of gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth. Though such bills are opposed by all major medical organizations (including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, and the American Psychiatric Association), misinformation continues to spread, and in some instances the bills have become law (though none are currently active due to legal challenges).

Clinicians should be aware that there have been sixteen studies to date, each with unique study designs, that have overall linked gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth to better mental health outcomes. While these interventions do (as with all medications) carry some risks (like delayed bone mineralization with pubertal suppression), the risks must be weighed against potential benefits. Unfortunately, these risks and benefits have not been accurately portrayed in state legislative debates. Politicians have spread a great deal of misinformation about gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth, including false assertions that puberty blockers cause infertility and that most transgender adolescents will grow up to identify as cisgender and regret gender-affirming medical interventions.
 

Minority stress

These bills have direct consequences for pediatric patients. For example, trans-inclusive bathroom policies are associated with lower rates of sexual assault. However, there are also important indirect effects to consider. The gender minority stress framework explains the ways in which stigmatizing national discourse drives higher rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidality among transgender youth. Under this model, so-called “distal factors” like the recent conversations at the national level that marginalize trans young people, are expected to drive higher rates of adverse mental health outcomes. As transgender youth hear high-profile politicians argue that they’re dangerous to their peers in bathrooms and on sports teams, it’s difficult to imagine their mental health would not worsen. Over time, such “distal factors” also lead to “proximal factors” like internalized transphobia in which youth begin to believe the negative things that are said about them. These dangerous processes can have dramatic negative impacts on self-esteem and emotional development. There is strong precedence that public policies have strong indirect mental health effects on LGBTQ youth.

We’ve entered a dangerous era in which politicians are legislating medical care and other aspects of public policy with the potential to hurt the mental health of our young patients. It’s imperative that clinicians and scientists contact their legislators to make sure they are voting for public policy based on data and fact, not misinformation and political rhetoric. The health of American children depends on it.

Dr. Turban (twitter.com/jack_turban) is a chief fellow in child and adolescent psychiatry at Stanford (Calif.) University.

In 2021, state lawmakers introduced a record number of bills that would affect transgender and gender-diverse people. The vast majority were focused on transgender and gender-diverse youth in particular. We’ve seen bills that would take away gender-affirming medical care for minors, ones that would force trans kids to play on sports teams that don’t match their gender identity, and others that would ban trans kids from public facilities like bathrooms that match their gender identities.

These bills aren’t particularly new, but state lawmakers are putting more energy into them than ever. In response, some public figures have started pushing back. Ariana Grande just pledged to match up to 1.5 million dollars in donations to combat anti–trans youth legislative initiatives. However, doctors have been underrepresented in the political discourse.

Sadly, much of the discussion in this area has been driven by wild speculation and emotional rhetoric. It’s rare that we see actual data brought to the table. As clinicians and scientists, we have a responsibility to highlight the data relevant to these legislative debates, and to share them with our representatives. I’m going to break down what we know quantitatively about each of these issues, so that you’ll feel empowered to bring that information to these debates. My hope is that we can move toward evidence-based public policy instead of rhetoric-based public policy, so that we can ensure the best health possible for young people around the country.
 

Bathroom bills

Though they’ve been less of a focus recently, politicians for years have argued that trans people should be forced to use bathrooms and other public facilities that match their sex assigned at birth, not their gender identity. Their central argument is that trans-inclusive public facility policies will result in higher rates of assault. Published peer-review data show this isn’t true. A 2019 study in Sexuality Research and Social Policy examined the impacts of trans-inclusive public facility policies and found they resulted in no increase in assaults among the general (mostly cisgender) population. Another 2019 study in Pediatrics found that trans-inclusive facility policies were associated with lower odds of sexual assault victimization against transgender youth. The myth that trans-inclusive public facilities increase assault risk is simply that: a myth. All existing data indicate that trans-inclusive policies will improve public safety.

Sports bills

One of the hottest debates recently involves whether transgender girls should be allowed to participate in girls’ sports teams. Those in favor of these bills argue that transgender girls have an innate biological sports advantage over cisgender girls, and if allowed to compete in girls’ sports leagues, they will dominate the events, and cisgender girls will no longer win sports titles. The bills feed into longstanding assumptions – those who were assigned male at birth are strong, and those who were assigned female at birth are weak.

But evidence doesn’t show that trans women dominate female sports leagues. It turns out, there are shockingly few transgender athletes competing in sports leagues around the United States, and even fewer winning major titles. When the Associated Press conducted an investigation asking lawmakers introducing such sports bills to name trans athletes in their states, most couldn’t point to a single one. After Utah state legislators passed a trans sports ban, Governor Spencer Cox vetoed it, pointing out that, of 75,000 high school kids participating in sports in Utah, there was only a single transgender girl (the state legislature overrode the veto anyway).

California has explicitly protected the rights of trans athletes to compete on sports teams that match their gender identity since 2013. There’s still an underrepresentation of trans athletes in sports participation and titles. This is likely because the deck is stacked against these young people in so many other ways that are unrelated to testosterone levels. Trans youth suffer from high rates of harassment, discrimination, and subsequent anxiety and depression that make it difficult to compete in and excel in sports.
 

Medical bills

State legislators have introduced bills around the country that would criminalize the provision of gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth. Though such bills are opposed by all major medical organizations (including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, and the American Psychiatric Association), misinformation continues to spread, and in some instances the bills have become law (though none are currently active due to legal challenges).

Clinicians should be aware that there have been sixteen studies to date, each with unique study designs, that have overall linked gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth to better mental health outcomes. While these interventions do (as with all medications) carry some risks (like delayed bone mineralization with pubertal suppression), the risks must be weighed against potential benefits. Unfortunately, these risks and benefits have not been accurately portrayed in state legislative debates. Politicians have spread a great deal of misinformation about gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth, including false assertions that puberty blockers cause infertility and that most transgender adolescents will grow up to identify as cisgender and regret gender-affirming medical interventions.
 

Minority stress

These bills have direct consequences for pediatric patients. For example, trans-inclusive bathroom policies are associated with lower rates of sexual assault. However, there are also important indirect effects to consider. The gender minority stress framework explains the ways in which stigmatizing national discourse drives higher rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidality among transgender youth. Under this model, so-called “distal factors” like the recent conversations at the national level that marginalize trans young people, are expected to drive higher rates of adverse mental health outcomes. As transgender youth hear high-profile politicians argue that they’re dangerous to their peers in bathrooms and on sports teams, it’s difficult to imagine their mental health would not worsen. Over time, such “distal factors” also lead to “proximal factors” like internalized transphobia in which youth begin to believe the negative things that are said about them. These dangerous processes can have dramatic negative impacts on self-esteem and emotional development. There is strong precedence that public policies have strong indirect mental health effects on LGBTQ youth.

We’ve entered a dangerous era in which politicians are legislating medical care and other aspects of public policy with the potential to hurt the mental health of our young patients. It’s imperative that clinicians and scientists contact their legislators to make sure they are voting for public policy based on data and fact, not misinformation and political rhetoric. The health of American children depends on it.

Dr. Turban (twitter.com/jack_turban) is a chief fellow in child and adolescent psychiatry at Stanford (Calif.) University.

In 2021, state lawmakers introduced a record number of bills that would affect transgender and gender-diverse people. The vast majority were focused on transgender and gender-diverse youth in particular. We’ve seen bills that would take away gender-affirming medical care for minors, ones that would force trans kids to play on sports teams that don’t match their gender identity, and others that would ban trans kids from public facilities like bathrooms that match their gender identities.

These bills aren’t particularly new, but state lawmakers are putting more energy into them than ever. In response, some public figures have started pushing back. Ariana Grande just pledged to match up to 1.5 million dollars in donations to combat anti–trans youth legislative initiatives. However, doctors have been underrepresented in the political discourse.

Sadly, much of the discussion in this area has been driven by wild speculation and emotional rhetoric. It’s rare that we see actual data brought to the table. As clinicians and scientists, we have a responsibility to highlight the data relevant to these legislative debates, and to share them with our representatives. I’m going to break down what we know quantitatively about each of these issues, so that you’ll feel empowered to bring that information to these debates. My hope is that we can move toward evidence-based public policy instead of rhetoric-based public policy, so that we can ensure the best health possible for young people around the country.
 

Bathroom bills

Though they’ve been less of a focus recently, politicians for years have argued that trans people should be forced to use bathrooms and other public facilities that match their sex assigned at birth, not their gender identity. Their central argument is that trans-inclusive public facility policies will result in higher rates of assault. Published peer-review data show this isn’t true. A 2019 study in Sexuality Research and Social Policy examined the impacts of trans-inclusive public facility policies and found they resulted in no increase in assaults among the general (mostly cisgender) population. Another 2019 study in Pediatrics found that trans-inclusive facility policies were associated with lower odds of sexual assault victimization against transgender youth. The myth that trans-inclusive public facilities increase assault risk is simply that: a myth. All existing data indicate that trans-inclusive policies will improve public safety.

Sports bills

One of the hottest debates recently involves whether transgender girls should be allowed to participate in girls’ sports teams. Those in favor of these bills argue that transgender girls have an innate biological sports advantage over cisgender girls, and if allowed to compete in girls’ sports leagues, they will dominate the events, and cisgender girls will no longer win sports titles. The bills feed into longstanding assumptions – those who were assigned male at birth are strong, and those who were assigned female at birth are weak.

But evidence doesn’t show that trans women dominate female sports leagues. It turns out, there are shockingly few transgender athletes competing in sports leagues around the United States, and even fewer winning major titles. When the Associated Press conducted an investigation asking lawmakers introducing such sports bills to name trans athletes in their states, most couldn’t point to a single one. After Utah state legislators passed a trans sports ban, Governor Spencer Cox vetoed it, pointing out that, of 75,000 high school kids participating in sports in Utah, there was only a single transgender girl (the state legislature overrode the veto anyway).

California has explicitly protected the rights of trans athletes to compete on sports teams that match their gender identity since 2013. There’s still an underrepresentation of trans athletes in sports participation and titles. This is likely because the deck is stacked against these young people in so many other ways that are unrelated to testosterone levels. Trans youth suffer from high rates of harassment, discrimination, and subsequent anxiety and depression that make it difficult to compete in and excel in sports.
 

Medical bills

State legislators have introduced bills around the country that would criminalize the provision of gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth. Though such bills are opposed by all major medical organizations (including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, and the American Psychiatric Association), misinformation continues to spread, and in some instances the bills have become law (though none are currently active due to legal challenges).

Clinicians should be aware that there have been sixteen studies to date, each with unique study designs, that have overall linked gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth to better mental health outcomes. While these interventions do (as with all medications) carry some risks (like delayed bone mineralization with pubertal suppression), the risks must be weighed against potential benefits. Unfortunately, these risks and benefits have not been accurately portrayed in state legislative debates. Politicians have spread a great deal of misinformation about gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth, including false assertions that puberty blockers cause infertility and that most transgender adolescents will grow up to identify as cisgender and regret gender-affirming medical interventions.
 

Minority stress

These bills have direct consequences for pediatric patients. For example, trans-inclusive bathroom policies are associated with lower rates of sexual assault. However, there are also important indirect effects to consider. The gender minority stress framework explains the ways in which stigmatizing national discourse drives higher rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidality among transgender youth. Under this model, so-called “distal factors” like the recent conversations at the national level that marginalize trans young people, are expected to drive higher rates of adverse mental health outcomes. As transgender youth hear high-profile politicians argue that they’re dangerous to their peers in bathrooms and on sports teams, it’s difficult to imagine their mental health would not worsen. Over time, such “distal factors” also lead to “proximal factors” like internalized transphobia in which youth begin to believe the negative things that are said about them. These dangerous processes can have dramatic negative impacts on self-esteem and emotional development. There is strong precedence that public policies have strong indirect mental health effects on LGBTQ youth.

We’ve entered a dangerous era in which politicians are legislating medical care and other aspects of public policy with the potential to hurt the mental health of our young patients. It’s imperative that clinicians and scientists contact their legislators to make sure they are voting for public policy based on data and fact, not misinformation and political rhetoric. The health of American children depends on it.

Dr. Turban (twitter.com/jack_turban) is a chief fellow in child and adolescent psychiatry at Stanford (Calif.) University.

To the Editor:

Atopic dermatitis (AD) affects an estimated 7.2% of adults and 10.7% of children in the United States; however, AD might affect different races at a varying rate.¹ Compared to their European American counterparts, Asian/Pacific Islanders and African Americans are 7 and 3 times more likely, respectively, to be given a diagnosis of AD.²

Despite being disproportionately affected by AD, minority groups might be underrepresented in clinical trials of AD treatments.³ One explanation for this imbalance might be that ethnoracial representation differs across regions in the United States, perhaps in regions where clinical trials are conducted. Price et al³ investigated racial representation in clinical trials of AD globally and found that patients of color are consistently underrepresented.

Research on racial representation in clinical trials within the United States—on national and regional scales—is lacking from the current AD literature. We conducted a study to compare racial and ethnic disparities in AD clinical trials across regions of the United States. 

Using the ClinicalTrials.gov database (www.clinicaltrials.gov) of the National Library of Medicine, we identified clinical trials of AD treatments (encompassing phases 1 through 4) in the United States that were completed before March 14, 2021, with the earliest data from 2013. Search terms included atopic dermatitis, with an advanced search for interventional (clinical trials) and with results.

In total, 95 completed clinical trials were identified, of which 26 (27.4%) reported ethnoracial demographic data. One trial was excluded due to misrepresentation regarding the classification of individuals who identified as more than 1 racial category. Clinical trials for systemic treatments (7 [28%]) and topical treatments (18 [72%]) were identified.

All ethnoracial data were self-reported by trial participants based on US Food and Drug Administration guidelines for racial and ethnic categorization.⁴ Trial participants who identified ethnically as Hispanic or Latino might have been a part of any racial group. Only 7 of the 25 included clinical trials (28%) provided ethnic demographic data (Hispanic [Latino] or non-Hispanic); 72% of trials failed to report ethnicity. Ethnic data included in our analysis came from only the 7 clinical trials that included these data. International multicenter trials that included a US site were excluded.

Ultimately, the number of trials included in our analysis was 25, comprised of 2443 participants. Data were further organized by US geographic region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West, and multiregion trials [ie, conducted in ≥2 regions]). No AD clinical trials were conducted solely in the Midwest; it was only included within multiregion trials.

Compared to their representation in the 2019 US Census, most minority groups were overrepresented in clinical trials, while White individuals were underrepresented (eTable). The percentages of our findings on representation for race are as follows (US Census data are listed in parentheses for comparison⁵):

• White: 56.8% (72.5%)
• Black/African American: 28.3% (12.7%)
• Asian: 10.3% (5.5%)
• Multiracial: 1.1% (3.3%)
• Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander: 0.3% (0.2%)
• American Indian or Alaska Native: 0.2% (0.8%)
• Other: 0.5% (4.9%).

Our findings on representation for ethnicity are as follows (US Census data is listed in parentheses for comparison⁵):

• Hispanic or Latino: 21.4% (18.0%)

Although representation of Black/African American and Asian participants in clinical trials was higher than their representation in US Census data and representation of White participants was lower in clinical trials than their representation in census data, equal representation among all racial and ethnic groups is still lacking. A potential explanation for this finding might be that requirements for trial inclusion selected for more minority patients, given the propensity for greater severity of AD among those racial groups.² Another explanation might be that efforts to include minority patients in clinical trials are improving.

There were great differences in ethnoracial representation in clinical trials when regions within the United States were compared. Based on census population data by region, the West had the highest percentage (29.9%) of Hispanic or Latino residents; however, this group represented only 11.7% of participants in AD clinical trials in that region.⁵

The South had the greatest number of participants in AD clinical trials of any region, which was consistent with research findings on an association between severity of AD and heat.⁶ With a warmer climate correlating with an increased incidence of AD, it is possible that more people are willing to participate in clinical trials in the South.

The Midwest was the only region in which region-specific clinical trials were not conducted. Recent studies have shown that individuals with AD who live in the Midwest have comparatively less access to health care associated with AD treatment and are more likely to visit an emergency department because of AD than individuals in any other US region.⁷ This discrepancy highlights the need for increased access to resources and clinical trials focused on the treatment of AD in the Midwest.

In 1993, the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act established a federal legislative mandate to encourage inclusion of women and people of color in clinical trials.⁸ During the last 2 decades, there have been improvements in ethnoracial reporting. A 2020 global study found that 81.1% of randomized controlled trials (phases 2 and 3) of AD treatments reported ethnoracial data.³

Equal representation in clinical trials allows for further investigation of the connection between race, AD severity, and treatment efficacy. Clinical trials need to have equal representation of ethnoracial categories across all regions of the United States. If one group is notably overrepresented, ethnoracial associations related to the treatment of AD might go undetected.⁹ Similarly, if representation is unequal, relationships of treatment efficacy within ethnoracial groups also might go undetected. None of the clinical trials that we analyzed investigated treatment efficacy by race, suggesting that there is a need for future research in this area.

It also is important to note that broad classifications of race and ethnicity are limiting and therefore overlook differences within ethnoracial categories. Although representation of minority patients in clinical trials for AD treatments is improving, we conclude that there remains a need for greater and equal representation of minority groups in clinical trials of AD treatments in the United States.

To the Editor:

Atopic dermatitis (AD) affects an estimated 7.2% of adults and 10.7% of children in the United States; however, AD might affect different races at a varying rate.¹ Compared to their European American counterparts, Asian/Pacific Islanders and African Americans are 7 and 3 times more likely, respectively, to be given a diagnosis of AD.²

Despite being disproportionately affected by AD, minority groups might be underrepresented in clinical trials of AD treatments.³ One explanation for this imbalance might be that ethnoracial representation differs across regions in the United States, perhaps in regions where clinical trials are conducted. Price et al³ investigated racial representation in clinical trials of AD globally and found that patients of color are consistently underrepresented.

Research on racial representation in clinical trials within the United States—on national and regional scales—is lacking from the current AD literature. We conducted a study to compare racial and ethnic disparities in AD clinical trials across regions of the United States. 

Using the ClinicalTrials.gov database (www.clinicaltrials.gov) of the National Library of Medicine, we identified clinical trials of AD treatments (encompassing phases 1 through 4) in the United States that were completed before March 14, 2021, with the earliest data from 2013. Search terms included atopic dermatitis, with an advanced search for interventional (clinical trials) and with results.

In total, 95 completed clinical trials were identified, of which 26 (27.4%) reported ethnoracial demographic data. One trial was excluded due to misrepresentation regarding the classification of individuals who identified as more than 1 racial category. Clinical trials for systemic treatments (7 [28%]) and topical treatments (18 [72%]) were identified.

All ethnoracial data were self-reported by trial participants based on US Food and Drug Administration guidelines for racial and ethnic categorization.⁴ Trial participants who identified ethnically as Hispanic or Latino might have been a part of any racial group. Only 7 of the 25 included clinical trials (28%) provided ethnic demographic data (Hispanic [Latino] or non-Hispanic); 72% of trials failed to report ethnicity. Ethnic data included in our analysis came from only the 7 clinical trials that included these data. International multicenter trials that included a US site were excluded.

Ultimately, the number of trials included in our analysis was 25, comprised of 2443 participants. Data were further organized by US geographic region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West, and multiregion trials [ie, conducted in ≥2 regions]). No AD clinical trials were conducted solely in the Midwest; it was only included within multiregion trials.

Compared to their representation in the 2019 US Census, most minority groups were overrepresented in clinical trials, while White individuals were underrepresented (eTable). The percentages of our findings on representation for race are as follows (US Census data are listed in parentheses for comparison⁵):

• White: 56.8% (72.5%)
• Black/African American: 28.3% (12.7%)
• Asian: 10.3% (5.5%)
• Multiracial: 1.1% (3.3%)
• Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander: 0.3% (0.2%)
• American Indian or Alaska Native: 0.2% (0.8%)
• Other: 0.5% (4.9%).

Our findings on representation for ethnicity are as follows (US Census data is listed in parentheses for comparison⁵):

• Hispanic or Latino: 21.4% (18.0%)

Although representation of Black/African American and Asian participants in clinical trials was higher than their representation in US Census data and representation of White participants was lower in clinical trials than their representation in census data, equal representation among all racial and ethnic groups is still lacking. A potential explanation for this finding might be that requirements for trial inclusion selected for more minority patients, given the propensity for greater severity of AD among those racial groups.² Another explanation might be that efforts to include minority patients in clinical trials are improving.

There were great differences in ethnoracial representation in clinical trials when regions within the United States were compared. Based on census population data by region, the West had the highest percentage (29.9%) of Hispanic or Latino residents; however, this group represented only 11.7% of participants in AD clinical trials in that region.⁵

The South had the greatest number of participants in AD clinical trials of any region, which was consistent with research findings on an association between severity of AD and heat.⁶ With a warmer climate correlating with an increased incidence of AD, it is possible that more people are willing to participate in clinical trials in the South.

The Midwest was the only region in which region-specific clinical trials were not conducted. Recent studies have shown that individuals with AD who live in the Midwest have comparatively less access to health care associated with AD treatment and are more likely to visit an emergency department because of AD than individuals in any other US region.⁷ This discrepancy highlights the need for increased access to resources and clinical trials focused on the treatment of AD in the Midwest.

In 1993, the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act established a federal legislative mandate to encourage inclusion of women and people of color in clinical trials.⁸ During the last 2 decades, there have been improvements in ethnoracial reporting. A 2020 global study found that 81.1% of randomized controlled trials (phases 2 and 3) of AD treatments reported ethnoracial data.³

Equal representation in clinical trials allows for further investigation of the connection between race, AD severity, and treatment efficacy. Clinical trials need to have equal representation of ethnoracial categories across all regions of the United States. If one group is notably overrepresented, ethnoracial associations related to the treatment of AD might go undetected.⁹ Similarly, if representation is unequal, relationships of treatment efficacy within ethnoracial groups also might go undetected. None of the clinical trials that we analyzed investigated treatment efficacy by race, suggesting that there is a need for future research in this area.

It also is important to note that broad classifications of race and ethnicity are limiting and therefore overlook differences within ethnoracial categories. Although representation of minority patients in clinical trials for AD treatments is improving, we conclude that there remains a need for greater and equal representation of minority groups in clinical trials of AD treatments in the United States.

To the Editor:

Atopic dermatitis (AD) affects an estimated 7.2% of adults and 10.7% of children in the United States; however, AD might affect different races at a varying rate.¹ Compared to their European American counterparts, Asian/Pacific Islanders and African Americans are 7 and 3 times more likely, respectively, to be given a diagnosis of AD.²

Despite being disproportionately affected by AD, minority groups might be underrepresented in clinical trials of AD treatments.³ One explanation for this imbalance might be that ethnoracial representation differs across regions in the United States, perhaps in regions where clinical trials are conducted. Price et al³ investigated racial representation in clinical trials of AD globally and found that patients of color are consistently underrepresented.

Research on racial representation in clinical trials within the United States—on national and regional scales—is lacking from the current AD literature. We conducted a study to compare racial and ethnic disparities in AD clinical trials across regions of the United States. 

Using the ClinicalTrials.gov database (www.clinicaltrials.gov) of the National Library of Medicine, we identified clinical trials of AD treatments (encompassing phases 1 through 4) in the United States that were completed before March 14, 2021, with the earliest data from 2013. Search terms included atopic dermatitis, with an advanced search for interventional (clinical trials) and with results.

In total, 95 completed clinical trials were identified, of which 26 (27.4%) reported ethnoracial demographic data. One trial was excluded due to misrepresentation regarding the classification of individuals who identified as more than 1 racial category. Clinical trials for systemic treatments (7 [28%]) and topical treatments (18 [72%]) were identified.

All ethnoracial data were self-reported by trial participants based on US Food and Drug Administration guidelines for racial and ethnic categorization.⁴ Trial participants who identified ethnically as Hispanic or Latino might have been a part of any racial group. Only 7 of the 25 included clinical trials (28%) provided ethnic demographic data (Hispanic [Latino] or non-Hispanic); 72% of trials failed to report ethnicity. Ethnic data included in our analysis came from only the 7 clinical trials that included these data. International multicenter trials that included a US site were excluded.

Ultimately, the number of trials included in our analysis was 25, comprised of 2443 participants. Data were further organized by US geographic region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West, and multiregion trials [ie, conducted in ≥2 regions]). No AD clinical trials were conducted solely in the Midwest; it was only included within multiregion trials.

Compared to their representation in the 2019 US Census, most minority groups were overrepresented in clinical trials, while White individuals were underrepresented (eTable). The percentages of our findings on representation for race are as follows (US Census data are listed in parentheses for comparison⁵):

• White: 56.8% (72.5%)
• Black/African American: 28.3% (12.7%)
• Asian: 10.3% (5.5%)
• Multiracial: 1.1% (3.3%)
• Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander: 0.3% (0.2%)
• American Indian or Alaska Native: 0.2% (0.8%)
• Other: 0.5% (4.9%).

Our findings on representation for ethnicity are as follows (US Census data is listed in parentheses for comparison⁵):

• Hispanic or Latino: 21.4% (18.0%)

Although representation of Black/African American and Asian participants in clinical trials was higher than their representation in US Census data and representation of White participants was lower in clinical trials than their representation in census data, equal representation among all racial and ethnic groups is still lacking. A potential explanation for this finding might be that requirements for trial inclusion selected for more minority patients, given the propensity for greater severity of AD among those racial groups.² Another explanation might be that efforts to include minority patients in clinical trials are improving.

There were great differences in ethnoracial representation in clinical trials when regions within the United States were compared. Based on census population data by region, the West had the highest percentage (29.9%) of Hispanic or Latino residents; however, this group represented only 11.7% of participants in AD clinical trials in that region.⁵

The South had the greatest number of participants in AD clinical trials of any region, which was consistent with research findings on an association between severity of AD and heat.⁶ With a warmer climate correlating with an increased incidence of AD, it is possible that more people are willing to participate in clinical trials in the South.

The Midwest was the only region in which region-specific clinical trials were not conducted. Recent studies have shown that individuals with AD who live in the Midwest have comparatively less access to health care associated with AD treatment and are more likely to visit an emergency department because of AD than individuals in any other US region.⁷ This discrepancy highlights the need for increased access to resources and clinical trials focused on the treatment of AD in the Midwest.

In 1993, the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act established a federal legislative mandate to encourage inclusion of women and people of color in clinical trials.⁸ During the last 2 decades, there have been improvements in ethnoracial reporting. A 2020 global study found that 81.1% of randomized controlled trials (phases 2 and 3) of AD treatments reported ethnoracial data.³

Equal representation in clinical trials allows for further investigation of the connection between race, AD severity, and treatment efficacy. Clinical trials need to have equal representation of ethnoracial categories across all regions of the United States. If one group is notably overrepresented, ethnoracial associations related to the treatment of AD might go undetected.⁹ Similarly, if representation is unequal, relationships of treatment efficacy within ethnoracial groups also might go undetected. None of the clinical trials that we analyzed investigated treatment efficacy by race, suggesting that there is a need for future research in this area.

It also is important to note that broad classifications of race and ethnicity are limiting and therefore overlook differences within ethnoracial categories. Although representation of minority patients in clinical trials for AD treatments is improving, we conclude that there remains a need for greater and equal representation of minority groups in clinical trials of AD treatments in the United States.

Sunscreen formulations typically protect from UV radiation (290–400 nm), as this is a well-established cause of photodamage, photoaging, and skin cancer.¹ However, sunlight also consists of visible (400–700 nm) and infrared (>700 nm) radiation.² In fact, UV radiation only comprises 5% to 7% of the solar radiation that reaches the surface of the earth, while visible and infrared lights comprise 44% and 53%, respectively.³ Visible light (VL) is the only portion of the solar spectrum visible to the human eye; it penetrates the skin to a depth range of 90 to 750 µm compared to 1.5 to 90 µm for UV radiation.⁴ Visible light also may come from artificial sources such as light bulbs and digital screens. The rapidly increasing use of smartphones, tablets, laptops, and other digital screens that emit high levels of short-wavelength VL has increased concerns about the safety of these devices. Although blue light exposure from screens is small compared with the amount of exposure from the sun, there is concern about the long-term effects of excessive screen time. Recent studies have demonstrated that exposure to light emitted from electronic devices, even for as little as 1 hour, may cause reactive oxygen species generation, apoptosis, collagen degradation, and necrosis of skin cells.⁵ Visible light increases tyrosinase activity and induces immediate erythema in light-skinned individuals and long-lasting pigmentation in dark-skinned individuals.^4,6

Sunscreens consist of chemical and mineral active ingredients that contain UV filters designed to absorb, scatter, and reflect UV photons with wavelengths up to 380 nm. Historically, traditional options do not protect against the effects induced by VL, as these sunscreens use nanosized particles that help to reduce the white appearance and result in transparency of the product.⁷ To block VL, the topical agent must be visible. Tinted sunscreens (TSs) are products that combine UV and VL filters. They give a colored base coverage that is achieved by incorporating a blend of black, red, and yellow iron oxides (IOs) and/or pigmentary titanium dioxide (PTD)(ie, titanium dioxide [TD] that is not nanosized). Because TSs offer an instant glow and protect the skin from both sun and artificial light, they have become increasingly popular and have been incorporated into makeup and skin care products to facilitate daily convenient use.

The purpose of this analysis was to study current available options and product factors that may influence consumer preference when choosing a TS based on the reviewer characteristics.

Methods

The keyword sunscreen was searched in the broader category of skin care products on an online supplier of sunscreens (www.sephora.com). This supplier was chosen because, unlike other sources, specific reviewer characteristics regarding underlying skin tone also were available. The search produced 161 results. For the purpose of this analysis, only facial TSs containing IO and/or PTD were included. Each sunscreen was checked by the authors, and 58 sunscreens that met the inclusion criteria were identified and further reviewed. Descriptive data, including formulation, sun protection factor (SPF), ingredient type (chemical or physical), pigments used, shades available, additional benefits, price range, rating, and user reviews, were gathered. The authors extracted these data from the product information on the website, manufacturer claims, ratings, and reviewer comments on each of the listed sunscreens.

For each product, the content of the top 10 most helpful positive and negative reviews as voted by consumers (1160 total reviews, consisting of 1 or more comments) was analyzed. Two authors (H.D.L.G. and P.V.) coded consumer-reported comments for positive and negative descriptors into the categories of cosmetic elegance, performance, skin compatibility and tolerance, tone compatibility, and affordability. Cosmetic elegance was defined as any feature associated with skin sensation (eg, greasy), color (eg, white cast), scent, ability to blend, and overall appearance of the product on the skin. Product performance included SPF, effectiveness in preventing sunburn, coverage, and finish claims (ie, matte, glow, invisible). Skin compatibility and tolerance were represented in the reviewers’ comments and reflected how the product performed in association with underlying dermatologic conditions, skin type, and if there were any side effects such as irritation or allergic reactions. Tone compatibility referred to TS color similarity with users’ skin and shades available for individual products. Affordability reflected consumers’ perceptions of the product price. Comments may be included in multiple categories (eg, a product was noted to blend well on the skin but did not provide enough coverage). Of entries, 10% (116/1160 reviews) were coded by first author (H.D.L.G.) to ensure internal validity. Reviewer characteristics were consistently available and were used to determine the top 5 recommended products for light-, medium-, and dark-skinned individuals based on the number of 5-star ratings in each group. Porcelain, fair, and light were considered light skin tones. Medium, tan, and olive were considered medium skin tones. Deep, dark, and ebony were considered dark skin tones.

Results

Sunscreen Characteristics—Among the 161 screened products, 58 met the inclusion criteria. Four types of formulations were included: lotion, cream, liquid, and powder. Twenty-nine (50%) were creams, followed by lotions (19%), liquids (28%), and powders (3%). More than 79% (46/58) of products had a reported SPF of 30 or higher. Sunscreens with an active physical ingredient—the minerals TD and/or zinc oxide (ZO)—were most common (33/58 [57%]), followed by the chemical sunscreens avobenzone, octinoxate, oxybenzone, homosalate, octisalate, and/or octocrylene active ingredients (14/58 [24%]), and a combination of chemical and physical sunscreens (11/58 [19%]). Nearly all products (55/58 [95%]) contained pigmentary IO (red, CI 77491; yellow, CI 77492; black, CI 77499). Notably, only 38% (22/58) of products had more than 1 shade. All products had additional claims associated with being hydrating, having antiaging effects, smoothing texture, minimizing the appearance of pores, softening lines, and/or promoting even skin tone. Traditional physical sunscreens (those containing TD and/or ZO) were more expensive than chemical sunscreens, with a median price of $30. The median review rating was 4.5 of 5 stars, with a median of 2300 customer reviews per product. Findings are summarized in Table 1.

Positive Features of Sunscreens—Based on an analysis of total reviews (N=1160), cosmetic elegance was the most cited positive feature associated with TS products (31%), followed by product performance (10%). Skin compatibility and tolerance (7%), tone compatibility (7%), and affordability (7%) were cited less commonly as positive features. When negative features were cited, consumers mostly noted tone incompatibility (16%) and cosmetic elegance concerns (14%). Product performance (13%) was comparatively cited as a negative feature (Table 1). Exemplary positive comments categorized in cosmetic elegance included the subthemes of rubs in well and natural glow. Exemplary negative comments in cosmetic elegance and tone compatibility categories included the subthemes patchy/dry finish and color mismatch. Table 1 illustrates these findings.

Product Recommendations—The top 5 recommendations of the best TS for each skin tone are listed in Table 2. The mean price of the recommended products was $42 for 1 to 1.9 oz. Laura Mercier Tinted Moisturizer Oil Free Natural Skin Perfector broad spectrum SPF 20 (Laura Mercier) was the top product for all 3 groups. Similarly, of 58 products available, the same 5 products—Laura Mercier Tinted Moisturizer Oil Free Natural Skin Perfector broad spectrum SPF 20, IT Cosmetics CC+ Cream with SPF 50 (IT Cosmetics, LLC), Tarte Amazonian Clay BB Tinted Moisturizer Broad Spectrum SPF 20 (Tarte Cosmetics), NARS Pure Radiant Tinted Moisturizer Broad Spectrum SPF 30 (NARS Cosmetics), and Laura Mercier Tinted Moisturizer Natural Skin Perfector broad spectrum SPF 30—were considered the best among consumers of all skin tones, with the addition of 2 different products (bareMinerals Original Liquid Mineral Foundation Broad Spectrum SPF 20 [bareMinerals] and ILIA Super Serum Skin Tint SPF 40 Foundation [ILIA Beauty]) in the dark skin group. Notably, these products were the only ones on Sephora’s website that offered up to 30 (22 on average) different shades.

Comment

Tone Compatibility—Tinted sunscreens were created to extend the range of photoprotection into the VL spectrum. The goal of TSs is to incorporate pigments that blend in with the natural skin tone, produce a glow, and have an aesthetically pleasing appearance. To accommodate a variety of skin colors, different shades can be obtained by mixing different amounts of yellow, red, and black IO with or without PTD. The pigments and reflective compounds provide color, opacity, and a natural coverage. Our qualitative analysis provides information on the lack of diversity among shades available for TS, especially for darker skin tones. Of the 58 products evaluated, 62% (32/58) only had 1 shade. In our cohort, tone compatibility was the most commonly cited negative feature. Of note, 89% of these comments were from consumers with dark skin tones, and there was a disproportional number of reviews by darker-skinned individuals compared to users with light and medium skin tones. This is of particular importance, as TSs have been shown to protect against dermatoses that disproportionally affect individuals with skin of color. When comparing sunscreen formulations containing IO with regular mineral sunscreens, Dumbuya et al³ found that IO-containing formulations significantly protected against VL-induced pigmentation compared with untreated skin or mineral sunscreen with SPF 50 or higher in individuals with Fitzpatrick skin type IV (P<.001). Similarly, Bernstein et al⁸ found that exposing patients with Fitzpatrick skin types III and IV to blue-violet light resulted in marked hyperpigmentation that lasted up to 3 months. Visible light elicits immediate and persistent pigment darkening in individuals with Fitzpatrick skin phototype III and above via the photo-oxidation of pre-existing melanin and de novo melanogenesis.⁹ Tinted sunscreens formulated with IO have been shown to aid in the treatment of melasma and prevent hyperpigmentation in individuals with Fitzpatrick skin types IV to VI.¹⁰ Patients with darker skin tones with dermatoses aggravated or induced by VL, such as melasma and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, may seek photoprotection provided by TS but find the lack of matching shades unappealing. The dearth of shade diversity that matches all skin tones can lead to inequities and disproportionally affect those with darker skin.

Performance—Tinted sunscreen formulations containing IO have been proven effective in protecting against high-energy VL, especially when combined synergistically with ZO.¹¹ Kaye et al¹² found that TSs containing IO and the inorganic filters TD or ZO reduced transmittance of VL more effectively than nontinted sunscreens containing TD or ZO alone or products containing organic filters. The decreased VL transmittance in the former is due to synergistic effects of the VL-scattering properties of the TD and the VL absorption properties of the IO. Similarly, Sayre et al¹³ demonstrated that IO was superior to TD and ZO in attenuating the transmission of VL. Bernstein et al¹⁴ found that darker shades containing higher percentages of IO increased the attenuation of VL to 98% compared with lighter shades attenuating 93%. This correlates with the results of prior studies highlighting the potential of TSs in protecting individuals with skin of color.³ In our cohort, comments regarding product performance and protection were mostly positive, claiming that consistent use reduced hyperpigmentation on the skin surface, giving the appearance of a more even skin tone.

Tolerability—Iron oxides are minerals known to be safe, gentle, and nontoxic on the surface of the skin.¹⁵ Two case reports of contact dermatitis due to IO have been reported.^16,17 Within our cohort, only a few of the comments (6%) described negative product tolerance or compatibility with their skin type. However, it is more likely that these incompatibilities were due to other ingredients in the product or the individuals’ underlying dermatologic conditions.

Cosmetic Elegance—Most of the sunscreens available on the market today contain micronized forms of TD and ZO particles because they have better cosmetic acceptability.¹⁸ However, their reduced size compromises the protection provided against VL whereby the addition of IO is of vital importance. According to the RealSelf Sun Safety Report, only 11% of Americans wear sunscreen daily, and 46% never wear sunscreen.¹⁹ The most common reasons consumers reported for not wearing sunscreen included not liking how it looks on the skin, forgetting to apply it, and/or believing that application is inconvenient and time-consuming. Currently, TSs have been incorporated into daily-life products such as makeup, moisturizers, and serums, making application for users easy and convenient, decreasing the necessity of using multiple products, and offering the opportunity to choose from different presentations to make decisions for convenience and/or diverse occasions. Products containing IO blend in with the natural skin tone and have an aesthetically pleasing cosmetic appearance. In our cohort, comments regarding cosmetic elegance were highly valued and were present in multiple reviews (45%), with 69% being positive.

Affordability—In our cohort, product price was not predominantly mentioned in consumers’ reviews. However, negative comments regarding affordability were slightly higher than the positive (56% vs 44%). Notably, the mean price of our top recommendations was $42. Higher price was associated with products with a wider range of shades available. Prior studies have found similar results demonstrating that websites with recommendations on sunscreens for patients with skin of color compared with sunscreens for white or fair skin were more likely to recommend more expensive products (median, $14/oz vs $11.3/oz) despite the lower SPF level.²⁰ According to Schneider,²¹ daily use of the cheapest sunscreen on the head/neck region recommended for white/pale skin ($2/oz) would lead to an annual cost of $61 compared to $182 for darker skin ($6/oz). This showcases the considerable variation in sunscreen prices for both populations that could potentiate disparities and vulnerability in the latter group.

Conclusion

Tinted sunscreens provide both functional and cosmetic benefits and are a safe, effective, and convenient way to protect against high-energy VL. This study suggests that patients with skin of color encounter difficulties in finding matching shades in TS products. These difficulties may stem from the lack of knowledge regarding dark complexions and undertones and the lack of representation of black and brown skin that has persisted in dermatology research journals and textbooks for decades.²² Our study provides important insights to help dermatologists improve their familiarity with the brands and characteristics of TSs geared to patients with all skin tones, including skin of color. Limitations include single-retailer information and inclusion of both highly and poorly rated comments with subjective data, limiting generalizability. The limited selection of shades for darker skin poses a roadblock to proper treatment and prevention. These data represent an area for improvement within the beauty industry and the dermatologic field to deliver culturally sensitive care by being knowledgeable about darker skin tones and TS formulations tailored to people with skin of color.

Sunscreen formulations typically protect from UV radiation (290–400 nm), as this is a well-established cause of photodamage, photoaging, and skin cancer.¹ However, sunlight also consists of visible (400–700 nm) and infrared (>700 nm) radiation.² In fact, UV radiation only comprises 5% to 7% of the solar radiation that reaches the surface of the earth, while visible and infrared lights comprise 44% and 53%, respectively.³ Visible light (VL) is the only portion of the solar spectrum visible to the human eye; it penetrates the skin to a depth range of 90 to 750 µm compared to 1.5 to 90 µm for UV radiation.⁴ Visible light also may come from artificial sources such as light bulbs and digital screens. The rapidly increasing use of smartphones, tablets, laptops, and other digital screens that emit high levels of short-wavelength VL has increased concerns about the safety of these devices. Although blue light exposure from screens is small compared with the amount of exposure from the sun, there is concern about the long-term effects of excessive screen time. Recent studies have demonstrated that exposure to light emitted from electronic devices, even for as little as 1 hour, may cause reactive oxygen species generation, apoptosis, collagen degradation, and necrosis of skin cells.⁵ Visible light increases tyrosinase activity and induces immediate erythema in light-skinned individuals and long-lasting pigmentation in dark-skinned individuals.^4,6

Sunscreens consist of chemical and mineral active ingredients that contain UV filters designed to absorb, scatter, and reflect UV photons with wavelengths up to 380 nm. Historically, traditional options do not protect against the effects induced by VL, as these sunscreens use nanosized particles that help to reduce the white appearance and result in transparency of the product.⁷ To block VL, the topical agent must be visible. Tinted sunscreens (TSs) are products that combine UV and VL filters. They give a colored base coverage that is achieved by incorporating a blend of black, red, and yellow iron oxides (IOs) and/or pigmentary titanium dioxide (PTD)(ie, titanium dioxide [TD] that is not nanosized). Because TSs offer an instant glow and protect the skin from both sun and artificial light, they have become increasingly popular and have been incorporated into makeup and skin care products to facilitate daily convenient use.

The purpose of this analysis was to study current available options and product factors that may influence consumer preference when choosing a TS based on the reviewer characteristics.

Methods

The keyword sunscreen was searched in the broader category of skin care products on an online supplier of sunscreens (www.sephora.com). This supplier was chosen because, unlike other sources, specific reviewer characteristics regarding underlying skin tone also were available. The search produced 161 results. For the purpose of this analysis, only facial TSs containing IO and/or PTD were included. Each sunscreen was checked by the authors, and 58 sunscreens that met the inclusion criteria were identified and further reviewed. Descriptive data, including formulation, sun protection factor (SPF), ingredient type (chemical or physical), pigments used, shades available, additional benefits, price range, rating, and user reviews, were gathered. The authors extracted these data from the product information on the website, manufacturer claims, ratings, and reviewer comments on each of the listed sunscreens.

For each product, the content of the top 10 most helpful positive and negative reviews as voted by consumers (1160 total reviews, consisting of 1 or more comments) was analyzed. Two authors (H.D.L.G. and P.V.) coded consumer-reported comments for positive and negative descriptors into the categories of cosmetic elegance, performance, skin compatibility and tolerance, tone compatibility, and affordability. Cosmetic elegance was defined as any feature associated with skin sensation (eg, greasy), color (eg, white cast), scent, ability to blend, and overall appearance of the product on the skin. Product performance included SPF, effectiveness in preventing sunburn, coverage, and finish claims (ie, matte, glow, invisible). Skin compatibility and tolerance were represented in the reviewers’ comments and reflected how the product performed in association with underlying dermatologic conditions, skin type, and if there were any side effects such as irritation or allergic reactions. Tone compatibility referred to TS color similarity with users’ skin and shades available for individual products. Affordability reflected consumers’ perceptions of the product price. Comments may be included in multiple categories (eg, a product was noted to blend well on the skin but did not provide enough coverage). Of entries, 10% (116/1160 reviews) were coded by first author (H.D.L.G.) to ensure internal validity. Reviewer characteristics were consistently available and were used to determine the top 5 recommended products for light-, medium-, and dark-skinned individuals based on the number of 5-star ratings in each group. Porcelain, fair, and light were considered light skin tones. Medium, tan, and olive were considered medium skin tones. Deep, dark, and ebony were considered dark skin tones.

Results

Sunscreen Characteristics—Among the 161 screened products, 58 met the inclusion criteria. Four types of formulations were included: lotion, cream, liquid, and powder. Twenty-nine (50%) were creams, followed by lotions (19%), liquids (28%), and powders (3%). More than 79% (46/58) of products had a reported SPF of 30 or higher. Sunscreens with an active physical ingredient—the minerals TD and/or zinc oxide (ZO)—were most common (33/58 [57%]), followed by the chemical sunscreens avobenzone, octinoxate, oxybenzone, homosalate, octisalate, and/or octocrylene active ingredients (14/58 [24%]), and a combination of chemical and physical sunscreens (11/58 [19%]). Nearly all products (55/58 [95%]) contained pigmentary IO (red, CI 77491; yellow, CI 77492; black, CI 77499). Notably, only 38% (22/58) of products had more than 1 shade. All products had additional claims associated with being hydrating, having antiaging effects, smoothing texture, minimizing the appearance of pores, softening lines, and/or promoting even skin tone. Traditional physical sunscreens (those containing TD and/or ZO) were more expensive than chemical sunscreens, with a median price of $30. The median review rating was 4.5 of 5 stars, with a median of 2300 customer reviews per product. Findings are summarized in Table 1.

Positive Features of Sunscreens—Based on an analysis of total reviews (N=1160), cosmetic elegance was the most cited positive feature associated with TS products (31%), followed by product performance (10%). Skin compatibility and tolerance (7%), tone compatibility (7%), and affordability (7%) were cited less commonly as positive features. When negative features were cited, consumers mostly noted tone incompatibility (16%) and cosmetic elegance concerns (14%). Product performance (13%) was comparatively cited as a negative feature (Table 1). Exemplary positive comments categorized in cosmetic elegance included the subthemes of rubs in well and natural glow. Exemplary negative comments in cosmetic elegance and tone compatibility categories included the subthemes patchy/dry finish and color mismatch. Table 1 illustrates these findings.

Product Recommendations—The top 5 recommendations of the best TS for each skin tone are listed in Table 2. The mean price of the recommended products was $42 for 1 to 1.9 oz. Laura Mercier Tinted Moisturizer Oil Free Natural Skin Perfector broad spectrum SPF 20 (Laura Mercier) was the top product for all 3 groups. Similarly, of 58 products available, the same 5 products—Laura Mercier Tinted Moisturizer Oil Free Natural Skin Perfector broad spectrum SPF 20, IT Cosmetics CC+ Cream with SPF 50 (IT Cosmetics, LLC), Tarte Amazonian Clay BB Tinted Moisturizer Broad Spectrum SPF 20 (Tarte Cosmetics), NARS Pure Radiant Tinted Moisturizer Broad Spectrum SPF 30 (NARS Cosmetics), and Laura Mercier Tinted Moisturizer Natural Skin Perfector broad spectrum SPF 30—were considered the best among consumers of all skin tones, with the addition of 2 different products (bareMinerals Original Liquid Mineral Foundation Broad Spectrum SPF 20 [bareMinerals] and ILIA Super Serum Skin Tint SPF 40 Foundation [ILIA Beauty]) in the dark skin group. Notably, these products were the only ones on Sephora’s website that offered up to 30 (22 on average) different shades.

Comment

Tone Compatibility—Tinted sunscreens were created to extend the range of photoprotection into the VL spectrum. The goal of TSs is to incorporate pigments that blend in with the natural skin tone, produce a glow, and have an aesthetically pleasing appearance. To accommodate a variety of skin colors, different shades can be obtained by mixing different amounts of yellow, red, and black IO with or without PTD. The pigments and reflective compounds provide color, opacity, and a natural coverage. Our qualitative analysis provides information on the lack of diversity among shades available for TS, especially for darker skin tones. Of the 58 products evaluated, 62% (32/58) only had 1 shade. In our cohort, tone compatibility was the most commonly cited negative feature. Of note, 89% of these comments were from consumers with dark skin tones, and there was a disproportional number of reviews by darker-skinned individuals compared to users with light and medium skin tones. This is of particular importance, as TSs have been shown to protect against dermatoses that disproportionally affect individuals with skin of color. When comparing sunscreen formulations containing IO with regular mineral sunscreens, Dumbuya et al³ found that IO-containing formulations significantly protected against VL-induced pigmentation compared with untreated skin or mineral sunscreen with SPF 50 or higher in individuals with Fitzpatrick skin type IV (P<.001). Similarly, Bernstein et al⁸ found that exposing patients with Fitzpatrick skin types III and IV to blue-violet light resulted in marked hyperpigmentation that lasted up to 3 months. Visible light elicits immediate and persistent pigment darkening in individuals with Fitzpatrick skin phototype III and above via the photo-oxidation of pre-existing melanin and de novo melanogenesis.⁹ Tinted sunscreens formulated with IO have been shown to aid in the treatment of melasma and prevent hyperpigmentation in individuals with Fitzpatrick skin types IV to VI.¹⁰ Patients with darker skin tones with dermatoses aggravated or induced by VL, such as melasma and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, may seek photoprotection provided by TS but find the lack of matching shades unappealing. The dearth of shade diversity that matches all skin tones can lead to inequities and disproportionally affect those with darker skin.

Performance—Tinted sunscreen formulations containing IO have been proven effective in protecting against high-energy VL, especially when combined synergistically with ZO.¹¹ Kaye et al¹² found that TSs containing IO and the inorganic filters TD or ZO reduced transmittance of VL more effectively than nontinted sunscreens containing TD or ZO alone or products containing organic filters. The decreased VL transmittance in the former is due to synergistic effects of the VL-scattering properties of the TD and the VL absorption properties of the IO. Similarly, Sayre et al¹³ demonstrated that IO was superior to TD and ZO in attenuating the transmission of VL. Bernstein et al¹⁴ found that darker shades containing higher percentages of IO increased the attenuation of VL to 98% compared with lighter shades attenuating 93%. This correlates with the results of prior studies highlighting the potential of TSs in protecting individuals with skin of color.³ In our cohort, comments regarding product performance and protection were mostly positive, claiming that consistent use reduced hyperpigmentation on the skin surface, giving the appearance of a more even skin tone.

Tolerability—Iron oxides are minerals known to be safe, gentle, and nontoxic on the surface of the skin.¹⁵ Two case reports of contact dermatitis due to IO have been reported.^16,17 Within our cohort, only a few of the comments (6%) described negative product tolerance or compatibility with their skin type. However, it is more likely that these incompatibilities were due to other ingredients in the product or the individuals’ underlying dermatologic conditions.

Cosmetic Elegance—Most of the sunscreens available on the market today contain micronized forms of TD and ZO particles because they have better cosmetic acceptability.¹⁸ However, their reduced size compromises the protection provided against VL whereby the addition of IO is of vital importance. According to the RealSelf Sun Safety Report, only 11% of Americans wear sunscreen daily, and 46% never wear sunscreen.¹⁹ The most common reasons consumers reported for not wearing sunscreen included not liking how it looks on the skin, forgetting to apply it, and/or believing that application is inconvenient and time-consuming. Currently, TSs have been incorporated into daily-life products such as makeup, moisturizers, and serums, making application for users easy and convenient, decreasing the necessity of using multiple products, and offering the opportunity to choose from different presentations to make decisions for convenience and/or diverse occasions. Products containing IO blend in with the natural skin tone and have an aesthetically pleasing cosmetic appearance. In our cohort, comments regarding cosmetic elegance were highly valued and were present in multiple reviews (45%), with 69% being positive.

Affordability—In our cohort, product price was not predominantly mentioned in consumers’ reviews. However, negative comments regarding affordability were slightly higher than the positive (56% vs 44%). Notably, the mean price of our top recommendations was $42. Higher price was associated with products with a wider range of shades available. Prior studies have found similar results demonstrating that websites with recommendations on sunscreens for patients with skin of color compared with sunscreens for white or fair skin were more likely to recommend more expensive products (median, $14/oz vs $11.3/oz) despite the lower SPF level.²⁰ According to Schneider,²¹ daily use of the cheapest sunscreen on the head/neck region recommended for white/pale skin ($2/oz) would lead to an annual cost of $61 compared to $182 for darker skin ($6/oz). This showcases the considerable variation in sunscreen prices for both populations that could potentiate disparities and vulnerability in the latter group.

Conclusion

Tinted sunscreens provide both functional and cosmetic benefits and are a safe, effective, and convenient way to protect against high-energy VL. This study suggests that patients with skin of color encounter difficulties in finding matching shades in TS products. These difficulties may stem from the lack of knowledge regarding dark complexions and undertones and the lack of representation of black and brown skin that has persisted in dermatology research journals and textbooks for decades.²² Our study provides important insights to help dermatologists improve their familiarity with the brands and characteristics of TSs geared to patients with all skin tones, including skin of color. Limitations include single-retailer information and inclusion of both highly and poorly rated comments with subjective data, limiting generalizability. The limited selection of shades for darker skin poses a roadblock to proper treatment and prevention. These data represent an area for improvement within the beauty industry and the dermatologic field to deliver culturally sensitive care by being knowledgeable about darker skin tones and TS formulations tailored to people with skin of color.

Sunscreen formulations typically protect from UV radiation (290–400 nm), as this is a well-established cause of photodamage, photoaging, and skin cancer.¹ However, sunlight also consists of visible (400–700 nm) and infrared (>700 nm) radiation.² In fact, UV radiation only comprises 5% to 7% of the solar radiation that reaches the surface of the earth, while visible and infrared lights comprise 44% and 53%, respectively.³ Visible light (VL) is the only portion of the solar spectrum visible to the human eye; it penetrates the skin to a depth range of 90 to 750 µm compared to 1.5 to 90 µm for UV radiation.⁴ Visible light also may come from artificial sources such as light bulbs and digital screens. The rapidly increasing use of smartphones, tablets, laptops, and other digital screens that emit high levels of short-wavelength VL has increased concerns about the safety of these devices. Although blue light exposure from screens is small compared with the amount of exposure from the sun, there is concern about the long-term effects of excessive screen time. Recent studies have demonstrated that exposure to light emitted from electronic devices, even for as little as 1 hour, may cause reactive oxygen species generation, apoptosis, collagen degradation, and necrosis of skin cells.⁵ Visible light increases tyrosinase activity and induces immediate erythema in light-skinned individuals and long-lasting pigmentation in dark-skinned individuals.^4,6

Sunscreens consist of chemical and mineral active ingredients that contain UV filters designed to absorb, scatter, and reflect UV photons with wavelengths up to 380 nm. Historically, traditional options do not protect against the effects induced by VL, as these sunscreens use nanosized particles that help to reduce the white appearance and result in transparency of the product.⁷ To block VL, the topical agent must be visible. Tinted sunscreens (TSs) are products that combine UV and VL filters. They give a colored base coverage that is achieved by incorporating a blend of black, red, and yellow iron oxides (IOs) and/or pigmentary titanium dioxide (PTD)(ie, titanium dioxide [TD] that is not nanosized). Because TSs offer an instant glow and protect the skin from both sun and artificial light, they have become increasingly popular and have been incorporated into makeup and skin care products to facilitate daily convenient use.

The purpose of this analysis was to study current available options and product factors that may influence consumer preference when choosing a TS based on the reviewer characteristics.

Methods

The keyword sunscreen was searched in the broader category of skin care products on an online supplier of sunscreens (www.sephora.com). This supplier was chosen because, unlike other sources, specific reviewer characteristics regarding underlying skin tone also were available. The search produced 161 results. For the purpose of this analysis, only facial TSs containing IO and/or PTD were included. Each sunscreen was checked by the authors, and 58 sunscreens that met the inclusion criteria were identified and further reviewed. Descriptive data, including formulation, sun protection factor (SPF), ingredient type (chemical or physical), pigments used, shades available, additional benefits, price range, rating, and user reviews, were gathered. The authors extracted these data from the product information on the website, manufacturer claims, ratings, and reviewer comments on each of the listed sunscreens.

For each product, the content of the top 10 most helpful positive and negative reviews as voted by consumers (1160 total reviews, consisting of 1 or more comments) was analyzed. Two authors (H.D.L.G. and P.V.) coded consumer-reported comments for positive and negative descriptors into the categories of cosmetic elegance, performance, skin compatibility and tolerance, tone compatibility, and affordability. Cosmetic elegance was defined as any feature associated with skin sensation (eg, greasy), color (eg, white cast), scent, ability to blend, and overall appearance of the product on the skin. Product performance included SPF, effectiveness in preventing sunburn, coverage, and finish claims (ie, matte, glow, invisible). Skin compatibility and tolerance were represented in the reviewers’ comments and reflected how the product performed in association with underlying dermatologic conditions, skin type, and if there were any side effects such as irritation or allergic reactions. Tone compatibility referred to TS color similarity with users’ skin and shades available for individual products. Affordability reflected consumers’ perceptions of the product price. Comments may be included in multiple categories (eg, a product was noted to blend well on the skin but did not provide enough coverage). Of entries, 10% (116/1160 reviews) were coded by first author (H.D.L.G.) to ensure internal validity. Reviewer characteristics were consistently available and were used to determine the top 5 recommended products for light-, medium-, and dark-skinned individuals based on the number of 5-star ratings in each group. Porcelain, fair, and light were considered light skin tones. Medium, tan, and olive were considered medium skin tones. Deep, dark, and ebony were considered dark skin tones.

Results

Sunscreen Characteristics—Among the 161 screened products, 58 met the inclusion criteria. Four types of formulations were included: lotion, cream, liquid, and powder. Twenty-nine (50%) were creams, followed by lotions (19%), liquids (28%), and powders (3%). More than 79% (46/58) of products had a reported SPF of 30 or higher. Sunscreens with an active physical ingredient—the minerals TD and/or zinc oxide (ZO)—were most common (33/58 [57%]), followed by the chemical sunscreens avobenzone, octinoxate, oxybenzone, homosalate, octisalate, and/or octocrylene active ingredients (14/58 [24%]), and a combination of chemical and physical sunscreens (11/58 [19%]). Nearly all products (55/58 [95%]) contained pigmentary IO (red, CI 77491; yellow, CI 77492; black, CI 77499). Notably, only 38% (22/58) of products had more than 1 shade. All products had additional claims associated with being hydrating, having antiaging effects, smoothing texture, minimizing the appearance of pores, softening lines, and/or promoting even skin tone. Traditional physical sunscreens (those containing TD and/or ZO) were more expensive than chemical sunscreens, with a median price of $30. The median review rating was 4.5 of 5 stars, with a median of 2300 customer reviews per product. Findings are summarized in Table 1.

Positive Features of Sunscreens—Based on an analysis of total reviews (N=1160), cosmetic elegance was the most cited positive feature associated with TS products (31%), followed by product performance (10%). Skin compatibility and tolerance (7%), tone compatibility (7%), and affordability (7%) were cited less commonly as positive features. When negative features were cited, consumers mostly noted tone incompatibility (16%) and cosmetic elegance concerns (14%). Product performance (13%) was comparatively cited as a negative feature (Table 1). Exemplary positive comments categorized in cosmetic elegance included the subthemes of rubs in well and natural glow. Exemplary negative comments in cosmetic elegance and tone compatibility categories included the subthemes patchy/dry finish and color mismatch. Table 1 illustrates these findings.

Product Recommendations—The top 5 recommendations of the best TS for each skin tone are listed in Table 2. The mean price of the recommended products was $42 for 1 to 1.9 oz. Laura Mercier Tinted Moisturizer Oil Free Natural Skin Perfector broad spectrum SPF 20 (Laura Mercier) was the top product for all 3 groups. Similarly, of 58 products available, the same 5 products—Laura Mercier Tinted Moisturizer Oil Free Natural Skin Perfector broad spectrum SPF 20, IT Cosmetics CC+ Cream with SPF 50 (IT Cosmetics, LLC), Tarte Amazonian Clay BB Tinted Moisturizer Broad Spectrum SPF 20 (Tarte Cosmetics), NARS Pure Radiant Tinted Moisturizer Broad Spectrum SPF 30 (NARS Cosmetics), and Laura Mercier Tinted Moisturizer Natural Skin Perfector broad spectrum SPF 30—were considered the best among consumers of all skin tones, with the addition of 2 different products (bareMinerals Original Liquid Mineral Foundation Broad Spectrum SPF 20 [bareMinerals] and ILIA Super Serum Skin Tint SPF 40 Foundation [ILIA Beauty]) in the dark skin group. Notably, these products were the only ones on Sephora’s website that offered up to 30 (22 on average) different shades.

Comment

Tone Compatibility—Tinted sunscreens were created to extend the range of photoprotection into the VL spectrum. The goal of TSs is to incorporate pigments that blend in with the natural skin tone, produce a glow, and have an aesthetically pleasing appearance. To accommodate a variety of skin colors, different shades can be obtained by mixing different amounts of yellow, red, and black IO with or without PTD. The pigments and reflective compounds provide color, opacity, and a natural coverage. Our qualitative analysis provides information on the lack of diversity among shades available for TS, especially for darker skin tones. Of the 58 products evaluated, 62% (32/58) only had 1 shade. In our cohort, tone compatibility was the most commonly cited negative feature. Of note, 89% of these comments were from consumers with dark skin tones, and there was a disproportional number of reviews by darker-skinned individuals compared to users with light and medium skin tones. This is of particular importance, as TSs have been shown to protect against dermatoses that disproportionally affect individuals with skin of color. When comparing sunscreen formulations containing IO with regular mineral sunscreens, Dumbuya et al³ found that IO-containing formulations significantly protected against VL-induced pigmentation compared with untreated skin or mineral sunscreen with SPF 50 or higher in individuals with Fitzpatrick skin type IV (P<.001). Similarly, Bernstein et al⁸ found that exposing patients with Fitzpatrick skin types III and IV to blue-violet light resulted in marked hyperpigmentation that lasted up to 3 months. Visible light elicits immediate and persistent pigment darkening in individuals with Fitzpatrick skin phototype III and above via the photo-oxidation of pre-existing melanin and de novo melanogenesis.⁹ Tinted sunscreens formulated with IO have been shown to aid in the treatment of melasma and prevent hyperpigmentation in individuals with Fitzpatrick skin types IV to VI.¹⁰ Patients with darker skin tones with dermatoses aggravated or induced by VL, such as melasma and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, may seek photoprotection provided by TS but find the lack of matching shades unappealing. The dearth of shade diversity that matches all skin tones can lead to inequities and disproportionally affect those with darker skin.

Performance—Tinted sunscreen formulations containing IO have been proven effective in protecting against high-energy VL, especially when combined synergistically with ZO.¹¹ Kaye et al¹² found that TSs containing IO and the inorganic filters TD or ZO reduced transmittance of VL more effectively than nontinted sunscreens containing TD or ZO alone or products containing organic filters. The decreased VL transmittance in the former is due to synergistic effects of the VL-scattering properties of the TD and the VL absorption properties of the IO. Similarly, Sayre et al¹³ demonstrated that IO was superior to TD and ZO in attenuating the transmission of VL. Bernstein et al¹⁴ found that darker shades containing higher percentages of IO increased the attenuation of VL to 98% compared with lighter shades attenuating 93%. This correlates with the results of prior studies highlighting the potential of TSs in protecting individuals with skin of color.³ In our cohort, comments regarding product performance and protection were mostly positive, claiming that consistent use reduced hyperpigmentation on the skin surface, giving the appearance of a more even skin tone.

Tolerability—Iron oxides are minerals known to be safe, gentle, and nontoxic on the surface of the skin.¹⁵ Two case reports of contact dermatitis due to IO have been reported.^16,17 Within our cohort, only a few of the comments (6%) described negative product tolerance or compatibility with their skin type. However, it is more likely that these incompatibilities were due to other ingredients in the product or the individuals’ underlying dermatologic conditions.

Cosmetic Elegance—Most of the sunscreens available on the market today contain micronized forms of TD and ZO particles because they have better cosmetic acceptability.¹⁸ However, their reduced size compromises the protection provided against VL whereby the addition of IO is of vital importance. According to the RealSelf Sun Safety Report, only 11% of Americans wear sunscreen daily, and 46% never wear sunscreen.¹⁹ The most common reasons consumers reported for not wearing sunscreen included not liking how it looks on the skin, forgetting to apply it, and/or believing that application is inconvenient and time-consuming. Currently, TSs have been incorporated into daily-life products such as makeup, moisturizers, and serums, making application for users easy and convenient, decreasing the necessity of using multiple products, and offering the opportunity to choose from different presentations to make decisions for convenience and/or diverse occasions. Products containing IO blend in with the natural skin tone and have an aesthetically pleasing cosmetic appearance. In our cohort, comments regarding cosmetic elegance were highly valued and were present in multiple reviews (45%), with 69% being positive.

Affordability—In our cohort, product price was not predominantly mentioned in consumers’ reviews. However, negative comments regarding affordability were slightly higher than the positive (56% vs 44%). Notably, the mean price of our top recommendations was $42. Higher price was associated with products with a wider range of shades available. Prior studies have found similar results demonstrating that websites with recommendations on sunscreens for patients with skin of color compared with sunscreens for white or fair skin were more likely to recommend more expensive products (median, $14/oz vs $11.3/oz) despite the lower SPF level.²⁰ According to Schneider,²¹ daily use of the cheapest sunscreen on the head/neck region recommended for white/pale skin ($2/oz) would lead to an annual cost of $61 compared to $182 for darker skin ($6/oz). This showcases the considerable variation in sunscreen prices for both populations that could potentiate disparities and vulnerability in the latter group.

Conclusion

Tinted sunscreens provide both functional and cosmetic benefits and are a safe, effective, and convenient way to protect against high-energy VL. This study suggests that patients with skin of color encounter difficulties in finding matching shades in TS products. These difficulties may stem from the lack of knowledge regarding dark complexions and undertones and the lack of representation of black and brown skin that has persisted in dermatology research journals and textbooks for decades.²² Our study provides important insights to help dermatologists improve their familiarity with the brands and characteristics of TSs geared to patients with all skin tones, including skin of color. Limitations include single-retailer information and inclusion of both highly and poorly rated comments with subjective data, limiting generalizability. The limited selection of shades for darker skin poses a roadblock to proper treatment and prevention. These data represent an area for improvement within the beauty industry and the dermatologic field to deliver culturally sensitive care by being knowledgeable about darker skin tones and TS formulations tailored to people with skin of color.

Amid increasing numbers of applications, decreasing match rates, and ongoing lack of diversity in the dermatology trainee workforce, the COVID-19 pandemic introduced additional challenges to the dermatology residency application process and laid bare systemic inequities and inherent problems that must be addressed. Historically, dermatology applicants have excelled in academic metrics, such as US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores and nomination to the Alpha Omega Alpha honor society. As biases associated with these academic metrics are being elucidated, they have in turn become less available. With the upcoming change in USMLE Step 1 reporting to pass/fail only, as well as the elimination of Alpha Omega Alpha nomination for students, clinical grades, and/or class ranks at many medical schools, other elements of the application, such as volunteer experiences and research publications, may be weighed more heavily in the selection process. This may serve to exacerbate the application arms race, characterized by a steady rise in volunteer experiences, research publications, and research gap years that has already begun and likely will continue, particularly among dermatology applicants.

These issues are not unique to dermatology and are occurring across all medical specialties to varying degrees. The monetary and opportunity costs of the application process have become astronomical for both applicants and faculty. Faculty are overburdened with administrative duties related to resident recruitment and advising, and students are experiencing heightened match-related anxiety earlier and more acutely. These factors may contribute to burnout among trainees and faculty and may have deleterious effects on medical education. It is clear that transformative work must be pursued to ensure an equitable and sustainable residency application process moving forward. In this column, we review the notable work being done within dermatology and across specialties to reform the residency application process.

Coalition Recommendations

In August 2021, the Coalition for Physician Accountability (CoPA) released recommendations for comprehensive improvement of the undergraduate medical education (UME) to graduate medical education transition, which includes residency application. Of the 9 principal themes addressed, 2 focus on the residency application process: (1) equitable mission-driven application review, and (2) optimization of the application, interview, and selection processes, which relates to application volume as well as interview offers and formats.¹

In the area of application review, CoPA recommends replacing all letters of recommendation with structured evaluative letters as a universal tool in the application process.¹ These letters would include specialty-specific questions based on core competencies and would be completed by an evaluator who directly observed the student. Additionally, the group recommends revising the content and structure of the medical student performance evaluation to improve access to longitudinal assessment data about students. Ideally, developing UME competency outcomes to apply across learners would decrease reliance on traditional but potentially problematic application elements, such as licensing examination scores, clinical grades, and narrative evaluations.¹

To optimize residency application processes, CoPA recommends exploring innovative approaches to reduce application volume and maximize applicants interviewing and matching at programs where mutual interest is high.¹ Suggestions to address these issues include preference signaling, application caps, and/or additional rounds of application or matching. Standardization of the interview process also is recommended to improve equity, minimize educational disruption, and improve applicant well-being. Suggestions include the use of common interview offer and scheduling platforms, policies to govern interview offers and scheduling timelines, interview caps, and ongoing study of the impact of virtual interviews.¹

Residency Application Innovations Implemented by Other Specialties

A number of specialties have developed innovations in the residency application process to improve equity and fairness as well as optimize applicant-program fit. Emergency medicine created a now widely adopted, specialty-specific standardized letter of evaluation (SLOE).² It compares applicants across a number of measures that include personal qualities, clinical skills, and a global assessment. The SLOE is designed to assess and compare applicants across institutions rather than provide recommendations. The emergency medicine SLOE also provides useful information about the letter writer, including duration and depth of interaction with the applicant and distribution of rankings of prior applicants.²

In 2019, obstetrics and gynecology launched a standardized application and interview process, which set a specialty-wide application deadline, limited interview invitations to the number of interview positions available, encouraged coordinated release of interview offers, and allowed applicants 72 hours to respond to invitations.³ These measures were implemented to improve fairness, transparency, and applicant well-being, as well as to promote equitable distribution of interviews. Data following this launch suggested that universal offer dates reduced excessive interviewing among competitive applicants.³

Last year, otolaryngology implemented a process known as preference signaling in which applicants were able to signal up to 5 preferred programs at the time of application. A signal allowed applicants to demonstrate interest in specific programs and could be used by programs during their application review process. Most applicants opted to submit signals, and programs received 0 to 71 signals (mean, 22).⁴ Almost all programs received at least 1 signal. The rate of receiving an interview was significantly higher for signaled programs (58%) compared to nonsignaled programs (14%)(P<.001), indicating that preference signaling may be beneficial for both programs and applicants for interview selection.⁴

Residency Application Innovations Implemented by Dermatology

Over the last 2 application cycles, dermatology has implemented several innovations to the residency application process. Initial work included release of guidelines for residency programs to conduct holistic application review,⁵ recommendations for website updates to share program-specific information with prospective trainees,⁶ and informational webinars and statements to update dermatology applicants about changes to the process and to answer application-related questions.^7-9

In 2020, dermatology initiated a coordinated interview invitation release in which interview offers were released on prespecified dates and applicants were given 48 hours prior to scheduling. Approximately 50% of residency programs participated in the first year, yet nearly all programs released on 1 of 2 universal dates in the current cycle. In a recent survey of dermatology applicants, nearly 90% supported coordinated release.¹⁰ Several other specialties also have incorporated universal release dates into their processes.

For the 2021-2022 application cycle, dermatology—along with internal medicine and general surgery—participated in the Association of American Medical Colleges’ pilot supplemental Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) application.¹¹ The pilot was designed as a first step to updating the ERAS content by allowing students to share more information about their extracurricular, research, and clinical activities, as well as geographic and program preferences to optimize applicant-program fit. Preference signaling, similar to the otolaryngology process, was included in the supplemental application, with dermatology applicants choosing up to 3 preferred programs to signal, excluding their home programs and any programs where they completed in-person away rotations. Preliminary data suggest that the vast majority of dermatology programs and applicants participated in the supplemental application.¹² Ongoing analysis of survey data from applicants, advisors, and program directors will help inform future directions. Dermatology has been an integral partner in the development, implementation, and evaluation of this pilot.

Proposed Innovations to the Application Process

Given the challenges of the current application process, there has been a long list of proposed innovations to ameliorate applicant, advisor, and program concerns.¹³ Many of these approaches are intended to respond to increasing costs to programs and applicants as well as the lack of equity in the process. Application caps and an early result acceptance program have both been proposed to address the ever-increasing volume of applications.^14,15 Neither of these proposals has been adopted by a specialty yet, but obstetrics and gynecology stakeholders have shown broad support for an early result acceptance program, signaling a possible future pilot.¹⁶

Interview caps also have been proposed to promote more equitable distribution of interview positions.¹⁷ Ophthalmology implemented this approach in the 2021-2022 application cycle, with applicants limited to a maximum of 18 interviews.¹⁸ Data from this pilot will help determine the effect of interview caps as well as the optimal limit, which will vary by specialty.

Changes to the application content itself could better facilitate holistic review and optimize applicant-program fit. This is the principle driving the pilot supplemental ERAS application, but it also has been addressed in other specialties. Ophthalmology replaced the traditional personal statement with a shorter autobiographical statement as well as 2 short personal essay questions. Plastic surgery designed a common supplemental application, currently in its second iteration, that highlights specialty-specific information from applicants to promote holistic review and eventually reduce application costs.¹⁹

The reforms introduced and proposed by dermatology and other specialties represent initial steps to address the issues inherent to the current residency application process. Providing faculty with better tools to holistically assess applicants during the review process and increasing transparency between programs and applicants should help optimize applicant-program fit and increase diversity in the dermatology workforce. Streamlining the application process to allow students to highlight their unique qualities in a user-friendly format as well as addressing potential inequities in interview distribution and access to the application process hopefully will contribute to better outcomes for both programs and applicants. However, many of these steps are likely to create additional administrative burdens on program faculty and are unlikely to allay student fears about matching.

The underlying issue for many specialties, and particularly for dermatology, is that demand far outstrips supply. With stable numbers of residency positions and an ever-increasing number of applicants, the match rate will continue to decrease, leading to increased anxiety among those interested in pursuing dermatology. Although USMLE Step 1 scores have been shown to have racial bias²⁰ and there are no data correlating scores with clinical performance, the elimination of a scoring system may affect the number of applicants entering dermatology with downstream effects on match rates. Heightened anxiety places increased pressure on students to choose a specialty earlier in their training and impacts the activities they pursue during medical school. Overemphasis on specialty choice and the match process can lead to higher rates of burnout among students and trainees, as students may focus on activities designed to increase their chances of matching at the expense of pursuing activities that could lead to greater engagement and passion in their careers—a key protective factor against burnout.

The goal of the residency application process is to optimize fit between candidates and programs by aligning goals, values, and learning environment. Students and programs working together as honest brokers can lead to transformative change in the process, freeing both parties to highlight their unique qualities and contributions. Programs benefit from optimal fit by being able to hone their particular mission and recruit and retain residents and faculty engaged in that mission. Residents will thrive in programs that support their learning and career goals and will ultimately be better positioned to meaningfully contribute to their chosen field in whatever capacity they choose.

Acknowledgments—The views presented in this column reflect those of the 9 elected members of the Association of Professors of Dermatology Residency Program Directors Section steering committee, all of whom are program directors at their institutions (listed in parentheses): Ammar Ahmed, MD (The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas); Yolanda Helfrich, MD (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan); Jo-Ann M. Latkowksi, MD (New York University, New York); Kiran Motaparthi, MD (University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida); Adena E. Rosenblatt, MD, PhD (The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois); Ilana S. Rosman, MD (Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri); Travis Vandergriff, MD (University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas); Diane Whitaker-Worth, MD (University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut); Scott Worswick, MD (University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California).

Amid increasing numbers of applications, decreasing match rates, and ongoing lack of diversity in the dermatology trainee workforce, the COVID-19 pandemic introduced additional challenges to the dermatology residency application process and laid bare systemic inequities and inherent problems that must be addressed. Historically, dermatology applicants have excelled in academic metrics, such as US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores and nomination to the Alpha Omega Alpha honor society. As biases associated with these academic metrics are being elucidated, they have in turn become less available. With the upcoming change in USMLE Step 1 reporting to pass/fail only, as well as the elimination of Alpha Omega Alpha nomination for students, clinical grades, and/or class ranks at many medical schools, other elements of the application, such as volunteer experiences and research publications, may be weighed more heavily in the selection process. This may serve to exacerbate the application arms race, characterized by a steady rise in volunteer experiences, research publications, and research gap years that has already begun and likely will continue, particularly among dermatology applicants.

These issues are not unique to dermatology and are occurring across all medical specialties to varying degrees. The monetary and opportunity costs of the application process have become astronomical for both applicants and faculty. Faculty are overburdened with administrative duties related to resident recruitment and advising, and students are experiencing heightened match-related anxiety earlier and more acutely. These factors may contribute to burnout among trainees and faculty and may have deleterious effects on medical education. It is clear that transformative work must be pursued to ensure an equitable and sustainable residency application process moving forward. In this column, we review the notable work being done within dermatology and across specialties to reform the residency application process.

Coalition Recommendations

In August 2021, the Coalition for Physician Accountability (CoPA) released recommendations for comprehensive improvement of the undergraduate medical education (UME) to graduate medical education transition, which includes residency application. Of the 9 principal themes addressed, 2 focus on the residency application process: (1) equitable mission-driven application review, and (2) optimization of the application, interview, and selection processes, which relates to application volume as well as interview offers and formats.¹

In the area of application review, CoPA recommends replacing all letters of recommendation with structured evaluative letters as a universal tool in the application process.¹ These letters would include specialty-specific questions based on core competencies and would be completed by an evaluator who directly observed the student. Additionally, the group recommends revising the content and structure of the medical student performance evaluation to improve access to longitudinal assessment data about students. Ideally, developing UME competency outcomes to apply across learners would decrease reliance on traditional but potentially problematic application elements, such as licensing examination scores, clinical grades, and narrative evaluations.¹

To optimize residency application processes, CoPA recommends exploring innovative approaches to reduce application volume and maximize applicants interviewing and matching at programs where mutual interest is high.¹ Suggestions to address these issues include preference signaling, application caps, and/or additional rounds of application or matching. Standardization of the interview process also is recommended to improve equity, minimize educational disruption, and improve applicant well-being. Suggestions include the use of common interview offer and scheduling platforms, policies to govern interview offers and scheduling timelines, interview caps, and ongoing study of the impact of virtual interviews.¹

Residency Application Innovations Implemented by Other Specialties

A number of specialties have developed innovations in the residency application process to improve equity and fairness as well as optimize applicant-program fit. Emergency medicine created a now widely adopted, specialty-specific standardized letter of evaluation (SLOE).² It compares applicants across a number of measures that include personal qualities, clinical skills, and a global assessment. The SLOE is designed to assess and compare applicants across institutions rather than provide recommendations. The emergency medicine SLOE also provides useful information about the letter writer, including duration and depth of interaction with the applicant and distribution of rankings of prior applicants.²

In 2019, obstetrics and gynecology launched a standardized application and interview process, which set a specialty-wide application deadline, limited interview invitations to the number of interview positions available, encouraged coordinated release of interview offers, and allowed applicants 72 hours to respond to invitations.³ These measures were implemented to improve fairness, transparency, and applicant well-being, as well as to promote equitable distribution of interviews. Data following this launch suggested that universal offer dates reduced excessive interviewing among competitive applicants.³

Last year, otolaryngology implemented a process known as preference signaling in which applicants were able to signal up to 5 preferred programs at the time of application. A signal allowed applicants to demonstrate interest in specific programs and could be used by programs during their application review process. Most applicants opted to submit signals, and programs received 0 to 71 signals (mean, 22).⁴ Almost all programs received at least 1 signal. The rate of receiving an interview was significantly higher for signaled programs (58%) compared to nonsignaled programs (14%)(P<.001), indicating that preference signaling may be beneficial for both programs and applicants for interview selection.⁴

Residency Application Innovations Implemented by Dermatology

Over the last 2 application cycles, dermatology has implemented several innovations to the residency application process. Initial work included release of guidelines for residency programs to conduct holistic application review,⁵ recommendations for website updates to share program-specific information with prospective trainees,⁶ and informational webinars and statements to update dermatology applicants about changes to the process and to answer application-related questions.^7-9

In 2020, dermatology initiated a coordinated interview invitation release in which interview offers were released on prespecified dates and applicants were given 48 hours prior to scheduling. Approximately 50% of residency programs participated in the first year, yet nearly all programs released on 1 of 2 universal dates in the current cycle. In a recent survey of dermatology applicants, nearly 90% supported coordinated release.¹⁰ Several other specialties also have incorporated universal release dates into their processes.

For the 2021-2022 application cycle, dermatology—along with internal medicine and general surgery—participated in the Association of American Medical Colleges’ pilot supplemental Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) application.¹¹ The pilot was designed as a first step to updating the ERAS content by allowing students to share more information about their extracurricular, research, and clinical activities, as well as geographic and program preferences to optimize applicant-program fit. Preference signaling, similar to the otolaryngology process, was included in the supplemental application, with dermatology applicants choosing up to 3 preferred programs to signal, excluding their home programs and any programs where they completed in-person away rotations. Preliminary data suggest that the vast majority of dermatology programs and applicants participated in the supplemental application.¹² Ongoing analysis of survey data from applicants, advisors, and program directors will help inform future directions. Dermatology has been an integral partner in the development, implementation, and evaluation of this pilot.

Proposed Innovations to the Application Process

Given the challenges of the current application process, there has been a long list of proposed innovations to ameliorate applicant, advisor, and program concerns.¹³ Many of these approaches are intended to respond to increasing costs to programs and applicants as well as the lack of equity in the process. Application caps and an early result acceptance program have both been proposed to address the ever-increasing volume of applications.^14,15 Neither of these proposals has been adopted by a specialty yet, but obstetrics and gynecology stakeholders have shown broad support for an early result acceptance program, signaling a possible future pilot.¹⁶

Interview caps also have been proposed to promote more equitable distribution of interview positions.¹⁷ Ophthalmology implemented this approach in the 2021-2022 application cycle, with applicants limited to a maximum of 18 interviews.¹⁸ Data from this pilot will help determine the effect of interview caps as well as the optimal limit, which will vary by specialty.

Changes to the application content itself could better facilitate holistic review and optimize applicant-program fit. This is the principle driving the pilot supplemental ERAS application, but it also has been addressed in other specialties. Ophthalmology replaced the traditional personal statement with a shorter autobiographical statement as well as 2 short personal essay questions. Plastic surgery designed a common supplemental application, currently in its second iteration, that highlights specialty-specific information from applicants to promote holistic review and eventually reduce application costs.¹⁹

The reforms introduced and proposed by dermatology and other specialties represent initial steps to address the issues inherent to the current residency application process. Providing faculty with better tools to holistically assess applicants during the review process and increasing transparency between programs and applicants should help optimize applicant-program fit and increase diversity in the dermatology workforce. Streamlining the application process to allow students to highlight their unique qualities in a user-friendly format as well as addressing potential inequities in interview distribution and access to the application process hopefully will contribute to better outcomes for both programs and applicants. However, many of these steps are likely to create additional administrative burdens on program faculty and are unlikely to allay student fears about matching.

The underlying issue for many specialties, and particularly for dermatology, is that demand far outstrips supply. With stable numbers of residency positions and an ever-increasing number of applicants, the match rate will continue to decrease, leading to increased anxiety among those interested in pursuing dermatology. Although USMLE Step 1 scores have been shown to have racial bias²⁰ and there are no data correlating scores with clinical performance, the elimination of a scoring system may affect the number of applicants entering dermatology with downstream effects on match rates. Heightened anxiety places increased pressure on students to choose a specialty earlier in their training and impacts the activities they pursue during medical school. Overemphasis on specialty choice and the match process can lead to higher rates of burnout among students and trainees, as students may focus on activities designed to increase their chances of matching at the expense of pursuing activities that could lead to greater engagement and passion in their careers—a key protective factor against burnout.

The goal of the residency application process is to optimize fit between candidates and programs by aligning goals, values, and learning environment. Students and programs working together as honest brokers can lead to transformative change in the process, freeing both parties to highlight their unique qualities and contributions. Programs benefit from optimal fit by being able to hone their particular mission and recruit and retain residents and faculty engaged in that mission. Residents will thrive in programs that support their learning and career goals and will ultimately be better positioned to meaningfully contribute to their chosen field in whatever capacity they choose.

Acknowledgments—The views presented in this column reflect those of the 9 elected members of the Association of Professors of Dermatology Residency Program Directors Section steering committee, all of whom are program directors at their institutions (listed in parentheses): Ammar Ahmed, MD (The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas); Yolanda Helfrich, MD (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan); Jo-Ann M. Latkowksi, MD (New York University, New York); Kiran Motaparthi, MD (University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida); Adena E. Rosenblatt, MD, PhD (The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois); Ilana S. Rosman, MD (Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri); Travis Vandergriff, MD (University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas); Diane Whitaker-Worth, MD (University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut); Scott Worswick, MD (University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California).

Amid increasing numbers of applications, decreasing match rates, and ongoing lack of diversity in the dermatology trainee workforce, the COVID-19 pandemic introduced additional challenges to the dermatology residency application process and laid bare systemic inequities and inherent problems that must be addressed. Historically, dermatology applicants have excelled in academic metrics, such as US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores and nomination to the Alpha Omega Alpha honor society. As biases associated with these academic metrics are being elucidated, they have in turn become less available. With the upcoming change in USMLE Step 1 reporting to pass/fail only, as well as the elimination of Alpha Omega Alpha nomination for students, clinical grades, and/or class ranks at many medical schools, other elements of the application, such as volunteer experiences and research publications, may be weighed more heavily in the selection process. This may serve to exacerbate the application arms race, characterized by a steady rise in volunteer experiences, research publications, and research gap years that has already begun and likely will continue, particularly among dermatology applicants.

These issues are not unique to dermatology and are occurring across all medical specialties to varying degrees. The monetary and opportunity costs of the application process have become astronomical for both applicants and faculty. Faculty are overburdened with administrative duties related to resident recruitment and advising, and students are experiencing heightened match-related anxiety earlier and more acutely. These factors may contribute to burnout among trainees and faculty and may have deleterious effects on medical education. It is clear that transformative work must be pursued to ensure an equitable and sustainable residency application process moving forward. In this column, we review the notable work being done within dermatology and across specialties to reform the residency application process.

Coalition Recommendations

In August 2021, the Coalition for Physician Accountability (CoPA) released recommendations for comprehensive improvement of the undergraduate medical education (UME) to graduate medical education transition, which includes residency application. Of the 9 principal themes addressed, 2 focus on the residency application process: (1) equitable mission-driven application review, and (2) optimization of the application, interview, and selection processes, which relates to application volume as well as interview offers and formats.¹

In the area of application review, CoPA recommends replacing all letters of recommendation with structured evaluative letters as a universal tool in the application process.¹ These letters would include specialty-specific questions based on core competencies and would be completed by an evaluator who directly observed the student. Additionally, the group recommends revising the content and structure of the medical student performance evaluation to improve access to longitudinal assessment data about students. Ideally, developing UME competency outcomes to apply across learners would decrease reliance on traditional but potentially problematic application elements, such as licensing examination scores, clinical grades, and narrative evaluations.¹

To optimize residency application processes, CoPA recommends exploring innovative approaches to reduce application volume and maximize applicants interviewing and matching at programs where mutual interest is high.¹ Suggestions to address these issues include preference signaling, application caps, and/or additional rounds of application or matching. Standardization of the interview process also is recommended to improve equity, minimize educational disruption, and improve applicant well-being. Suggestions include the use of common interview offer and scheduling platforms, policies to govern interview offers and scheduling timelines, interview caps, and ongoing study of the impact of virtual interviews.¹

Residency Application Innovations Implemented by Other Specialties

A number of specialties have developed innovations in the residency application process to improve equity and fairness as well as optimize applicant-program fit. Emergency medicine created a now widely adopted, specialty-specific standardized letter of evaluation (SLOE).² It compares applicants across a number of measures that include personal qualities, clinical skills, and a global assessment. The SLOE is designed to assess and compare applicants across institutions rather than provide recommendations. The emergency medicine SLOE also provides useful information about the letter writer, including duration and depth of interaction with the applicant and distribution of rankings of prior applicants.²

In 2019, obstetrics and gynecology launched a standardized application and interview process, which set a specialty-wide application deadline, limited interview invitations to the number of interview positions available, encouraged coordinated release of interview offers, and allowed applicants 72 hours to respond to invitations.³ These measures were implemented to improve fairness, transparency, and applicant well-being, as well as to promote equitable distribution of interviews. Data following this launch suggested that universal offer dates reduced excessive interviewing among competitive applicants.³

Last year, otolaryngology implemented a process known as preference signaling in which applicants were able to signal up to 5 preferred programs at the time of application. A signal allowed applicants to demonstrate interest in specific programs and could be used by programs during their application review process. Most applicants opted to submit signals, and programs received 0 to 71 signals (mean, 22).⁴ Almost all programs received at least 1 signal. The rate of receiving an interview was significantly higher for signaled programs (58%) compared to nonsignaled programs (14%)(P<.001), indicating that preference signaling may be beneficial for both programs and applicants for interview selection.⁴

Residency Application Innovations Implemented by Dermatology

Over the last 2 application cycles, dermatology has implemented several innovations to the residency application process. Initial work included release of guidelines for residency programs to conduct holistic application review,⁵ recommendations for website updates to share program-specific information with prospective trainees,⁶ and informational webinars and statements to update dermatology applicants about changes to the process and to answer application-related questions.^7-9

In 2020, dermatology initiated a coordinated interview invitation release in which interview offers were released on prespecified dates and applicants were given 48 hours prior to scheduling. Approximately 50% of residency programs participated in the first year, yet nearly all programs released on 1 of 2 universal dates in the current cycle. In a recent survey of dermatology applicants, nearly 90% supported coordinated release.¹⁰ Several other specialties also have incorporated universal release dates into their processes.

For the 2021-2022 application cycle, dermatology—along with internal medicine and general surgery—participated in the Association of American Medical Colleges’ pilot supplemental Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) application.¹¹ The pilot was designed as a first step to updating the ERAS content by allowing students to share more information about their extracurricular, research, and clinical activities, as well as geographic and program preferences to optimize applicant-program fit. Preference signaling, similar to the otolaryngology process, was included in the supplemental application, with dermatology applicants choosing up to 3 preferred programs to signal, excluding their home programs and any programs where they completed in-person away rotations. Preliminary data suggest that the vast majority of dermatology programs and applicants participated in the supplemental application.¹² Ongoing analysis of survey data from applicants, advisors, and program directors will help inform future directions. Dermatology has been an integral partner in the development, implementation, and evaluation of this pilot.

Proposed Innovations to the Application Process

Given the challenges of the current application process, there has been a long list of proposed innovations to ameliorate applicant, advisor, and program concerns.¹³ Many of these approaches are intended to respond to increasing costs to programs and applicants as well as the lack of equity in the process. Application caps and an early result acceptance program have both been proposed to address the ever-increasing volume of applications.^14,15 Neither of these proposals has been adopted by a specialty yet, but obstetrics and gynecology stakeholders have shown broad support for an early result acceptance program, signaling a possible future pilot.¹⁶

Interview caps also have been proposed to promote more equitable distribution of interview positions.¹⁷ Ophthalmology implemented this approach in the 2021-2022 application cycle, with applicants limited to a maximum of 18 interviews.¹⁸ Data from this pilot will help determine the effect of interview caps as well as the optimal limit, which will vary by specialty.

Changes to the application content itself could better facilitate holistic review and optimize applicant-program fit. This is the principle driving the pilot supplemental ERAS application, but it also has been addressed in other specialties. Ophthalmology replaced the traditional personal statement with a shorter autobiographical statement as well as 2 short personal essay questions. Plastic surgery designed a common supplemental application, currently in its second iteration, that highlights specialty-specific information from applicants to promote holistic review and eventually reduce application costs.¹⁹

The reforms introduced and proposed by dermatology and other specialties represent initial steps to address the issues inherent to the current residency application process. Providing faculty with better tools to holistically assess applicants during the review process and increasing transparency between programs and applicants should help optimize applicant-program fit and increase diversity in the dermatology workforce. Streamlining the application process to allow students to highlight their unique qualities in a user-friendly format as well as addressing potential inequities in interview distribution and access to the application process hopefully will contribute to better outcomes for both programs and applicants. However, many of these steps are likely to create additional administrative burdens on program faculty and are unlikely to allay student fears about matching.

The underlying issue for many specialties, and particularly for dermatology, is that demand far outstrips supply. With stable numbers of residency positions and an ever-increasing number of applicants, the match rate will continue to decrease, leading to increased anxiety among those interested in pursuing dermatology. Although USMLE Step 1 scores have been shown to have racial bias²⁰ and there are no data correlating scores with clinical performance, the elimination of a scoring system may affect the number of applicants entering dermatology with downstream effects on match rates. Heightened anxiety places increased pressure on students to choose a specialty earlier in their training and impacts the activities they pursue during medical school. Overemphasis on specialty choice and the match process can lead to higher rates of burnout among students and trainees, as students may focus on activities designed to increase their chances of matching at the expense of pursuing activities that could lead to greater engagement and passion in their careers—a key protective factor against burnout.

The goal of the residency application process is to optimize fit between candidates and programs by aligning goals, values, and learning environment. Students and programs working together as honest brokers can lead to transformative change in the process, freeing both parties to highlight their unique qualities and contributions. Programs benefit from optimal fit by being able to hone their particular mission and recruit and retain residents and faculty engaged in that mission. Residents will thrive in programs that support their learning and career goals and will ultimately be better positioned to meaningfully contribute to their chosen field in whatever capacity they choose.

Acknowledgments—The views presented in this column reflect those of the 9 elected members of the Association of Professors of Dermatology Residency Program Directors Section steering committee, all of whom are program directors at their institutions (listed in parentheses): Ammar Ahmed, MD (The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas); Yolanda Helfrich, MD (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan); Jo-Ann M. Latkowksi, MD (New York University, New York); Kiran Motaparthi, MD (University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida); Adena E. Rosenblatt, MD, PhD (The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois); Ilana S. Rosman, MD (Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri); Travis Vandergriff, MD (University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas); Diane Whitaker-Worth, MD (University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut); Scott Worswick, MD (University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California).